KIEV, Ukraine -- The North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is holding talks with Kiev over Ukraine’s possible participation in the alliance's planned missile defense system n Europe.
According to the head of the NATO Liaison Office in Ukraine, Marchin Koziel, the deployment of the system's elements is a priority for the alliance.
He says during the summit in Lisbon, NATO heads agreed on the possibility of involving non-member countries – or “third countries”- in the planned missile shield in Europe.
Thanks to “its ballistics missiles, technologies, know-how, experience or simply the process of European integration,” Ukraine is such a country, he stated speaking at a round table meeting in Kiev, reports the Rosbalt news agency.
The alliance and the leadership of the former Soviet republic are holding informal consultations regarding the issue on both political and technical levels, Koziel said.
After the February meeting between NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Hryschenko, the latter announced Ukraine would participate in the upcoming alliance summit in Chicago.
NATO, for its part, noted that Kiev was interested in cooperation with the organization on the creation of the missile defense system.
Rasmussen also said that NATO will invite Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich to take part in the summit in May.
Ukraine had long been bidding to join the military alliance. However, after Yanukovich replaced his pro-Western predecessor Viktor Yushchenko, the country's policy made a u-turn.
The new leader signed a decree declaring that Ukraine would remain non-aligned to any political-military unions, but would still continue to cooperate with NATO and other blocks based upon common interests.
Showing posts with label nato. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nato. Show all posts
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Sunday, 11 September 2011
NATO may provide missile shield guarantee
NATO does not rule out the issuing of a written guarantee that it will not direct its planned missile defense shield in Europe against Russia, reported an alliance official as saying on Friday.
While U.S. officials have stated the shield is not directed against Russia, Moscow has yet to receive a written assurance. The U.S. says it needs the shield, which will be eventually deployed in the Mediterranean, Poland, Romania and Turkey, to counter the threat of missile attacks from Iran.
NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy Dirk Brengelmann said "It would be possible to have a statement in the long run" when asked if NATO could provide political guarantees of non-aggression.
Brengelmann also told the Moscow-based Ekho Moskvy radio station said that NATO leaders could sign the statement.
Friday, 18 February 2011
NATO May Draw Ukraine In Discussing Plans To Deploy Missile Defense In Europe
KIEV, Ukraine -- NATO is ready in the future to involve Ukraine into discussing the deployment of missile defenses in Europe.
James Appathurai, NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, said this at a news conference in Moscow, as the UKRINFORM correspondent in Russia reported.
At this stage, NATO, he said, is in talks on this issue only with Russia, but the alliance's secretary-general is very well aware of the importance of a coordinated defense for Europe's future.
That's why, Appathurai said, they hope to continue the discussion (of the ABM issue) and start cooperating with other countries.
So all the European nations, including Ukraine, must be sure that the task is not to conduct a watershed in Europe, but to provide common defense, he added.
The Special Representative also said they respect the choice of the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people to have a non-aligned status. But the intention to cooperate with Ukraine since then has not diminished, and NATO continues to remember the obligations assumed in Bucharest, he noted.
According to Appathurai, it seems clear to the alliance that the Ukrainian government intends to further develop its cooperation with NATO in various fields.
He also indicated that Ukraine is actively continuing to participate in NATO operations.
As reported, in early November 2010, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, during his visit to Moscow, said he did not rule out the inclusion of the Ukrainian early warning systems in Sevastopol and Mukacheve in the European missile defense system.
November 23 in Warsaw, Secretary of National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Raisa Bohatyriova stated that Ukraine was ready to take part in the European missile defense system that NATO planned to create to protect Europe and the US.
December 15, NSDC First Deputy Secretary Stepan Havrysh said that Ukraine could take part in the creation of NATO missile defense system only together with Russia.
James Appathurai, NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, said this at a news conference in Moscow, as the UKRINFORM correspondent in Russia reported.
At this stage, NATO, he said, is in talks on this issue only with Russia, but the alliance's secretary-general is very well aware of the importance of a coordinated defense for Europe's future.
That's why, Appathurai said, they hope to continue the discussion (of the ABM issue) and start cooperating with other countries.
So all the European nations, including Ukraine, must be sure that the task is not to conduct a watershed in Europe, but to provide common defense, he added.
The Special Representative also said they respect the choice of the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people to have a non-aligned status. But the intention to cooperate with Ukraine since then has not diminished, and NATO continues to remember the obligations assumed in Bucharest, he noted.
According to Appathurai, it seems clear to the alliance that the Ukrainian government intends to further develop its cooperation with NATO in various fields.
He also indicated that Ukraine is actively continuing to participate in NATO operations.
As reported, in early November 2010, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, during his visit to Moscow, said he did not rule out the inclusion of the Ukrainian early warning systems in Sevastopol and Mukacheve in the European missile defense system.
November 23 in Warsaw, Secretary of National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Raisa Bohatyriova stated that Ukraine was ready to take part in the European missile defense system that NATO planned to create to protect Europe and the US.
December 15, NSDC First Deputy Secretary Stepan Havrysh said that Ukraine could take part in the creation of NATO missile defense system only together with Russia.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
NATO talks of war in Moscow
Russia’s Defence delegation and NATO have begun talks about European security. “Your visit is very important for the development of dialogue between Russia and NATO,” Head of General Staff General Nikolai Makarov told NATO Defence delegation representative Admiral Giampaulo di Paula.
“Today our talks have had some interim results. We will be talking about the issues of European security and areas of mutual interest,” Makarov said.
Missile defence is likely to be a key component of the discussions.
Monday, 12 July 2010
Ukraine-NATO Military Drills To Begin On Monday
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine-NATO Sea Breeze military exercises will begin in Ukraine's Black Sea region later on Monday.
The land phase of the drills, which will focus on fighting sea piracy, will be held at a military training area in the Nikolayev region, while the sea drills will take place in northwestern Black Sea.
The exercises will be held until July 23. Ukraine will be represented by a naval infantry battalion and five Coast Guard vessels.
Sea Breeze drills have been conducted in Ukraine since 1997 and involve troops from NATO countries on rotation basis.
In 2009, the Ukrainian parliament defied then-President Viktor Yushchenko and refused to approve the exercises. This year, Ukrainian lawmakers voted in favor of the drills, which will see the participation of some 3,000 military personnel from at least 15 countries.
Ukraine will also host this year a series of other international military and peacekeeping exercises, including Ukrainian-U.S. Rapid Trident 2010, Ukrainian-Romanian Cossack Steppe 2010 and Ukrainian-Polish-Lithuanian-Canadian Maple Arch 2010.
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
Russia's 'New' Stance Remains Anti-West
WASHINGTON, DC -- Ahead of Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Washington this week, a "leaked" Russian foreign policy document is causing some Russia watchers to wonder whether the Russian president is shifting his country toward a more positive, pro-Western stance. A careful read of the 18,000-word document does not support such wishful thinking.
Russian Newsweek published the document in May, along with a Feb. 10 cover letter to Medvedev from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. While the foreign ministry did not dispute the authenticity of the document, neither it nor the Kremlin has issued it formally. This contrasts with Russia's military doctrine, which was released officially in February.
Unlike the foreign policy document, the military doctrine was not greeted warmly in the West, given its clear anti-Western tone. According to the doctrine, the top dangers to Russia are NATO's enlargement and its efforts to take on "global functions carried out in violation of the norms of international law."
Other dangers include deployment of foreign (i.e., American) troops in states bordering Russia and strategic missile defense, which would "undermin[e] global stability and violat[e] the established correlation of forces in the nuclear-missile sphere."
The foreign policy document, by contrast, is a more polished, economically focused paper that largely -- but not entirely -- avoids such bellicose rhetoric. Yet a close reading makes clear that Russia's foreign policy objectives align closely with those reflected in the military doctrine.
For example, the foreign policy document seeks the "abandonment by the United States of unilateral actions aimed at deploying in Europe elements of a global missile defense that are capable of undermining Russia's deterrence potential, in favor of forming a 'missile defense pool' of interested states.
It seeks to revive the noxious European Security Treaty proposed by Medvedev last year, which would create an architecture that would subsume NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and succeed in the "containment of NATO's expansionist activities."
It also emphasizes cooperation with European Union member states that are "positively disposed toward the Russian Federation, primarily the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, and Spain" -- as opposed to the newer, eastern members.
ad_icon
Overall, the foreign policy document clearly supports establishment of a Russian sphere of influence, emphasizing the need to "consolidate the CIS (post-Soviet) area" and the imperative "actively to counter . . . attempts by forces outside the region to interfere in Russia's relations with the CIS countries."
It calls for bolstering the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization and consolidating Russia's Black Sea Fleet presence in Ukraine's Crimea and argues for the promotion of Russian language and culture in the countries along its borders.
It talks about providing "high-technology" energy assistance to the Georgian separatist region of Abkhazia but makes no mention of Georgia itself. So much for that country's territorial integrity.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia should be especially concerned about Russia's plans to expand its economic presence in the Baltic region "in light of the sharp fall in their investment attractiveness for countries of the E.U. and the substantial decline in the value of their national assets."
If assets in these countries are unappealing to European investors, one can only assume that Russia's interest is driven by a desire to reassert control over them through economic means. Indeed, a common theme of the document is the use of Russian money to buy up critical assets in other countries.
For example, the document seeks to "promote the consolidation of Russian business in strategic sectors of the Romanian economy"; it calls for drawing Ukraine "into the orbit of economic cooperation with Russia." It also pushes for a consortium to manage and develop Ukraine's gas-transportation system and the "acquisition by Russian investors of controlling shareholdings in major Ukrainian enterprises."
From the United States, the document seeks ratification of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which President Obama recently resubmitted to Congress, the lifting of unilateral sanctions on Russian enterprises and greater bilateral investment, along with the lifting of the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik amendment and the granting of most-favored-nation status.
It offers nothing in return. It praises Obama's interest in "multilateralism" but warns against the "weakening" of his political position in the United States, which could open the door to those who want to "turn back the clock" and presumably take a less friendly approach toward Moscow.
Meanwhile, the document promotes continued collaboration with Iran "across a broad spectrum of issues," including cooperation on nuclear energy, and greater military cooperation with the junta in Burma as well as increased arms sales to Latin America and the Caribbean.
This foreign policy document is not pro-Western at all. The officially released military doctrine may be a crude expression of Russian intentions, but the more nuanced, unofficial foreign policy document differs little in substance. During Medvedev's visit, no one should mistake this foreign policy document as reflecting a kinder Russia.
Russia under Medvedev remains a country with which we can still get some things done. But vast differences in our interests and values remain. They should not be swept under the rug.
Russian Newsweek published the document in May, along with a Feb. 10 cover letter to Medvedev from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. While the foreign ministry did not dispute the authenticity of the document, neither it nor the Kremlin has issued it formally. This contrasts with Russia's military doctrine, which was released officially in February.
Unlike the foreign policy document, the military doctrine was not greeted warmly in the West, given its clear anti-Western tone. According to the doctrine, the top dangers to Russia are NATO's enlargement and its efforts to take on "global functions carried out in violation of the norms of international law."
Other dangers include deployment of foreign (i.e., American) troops in states bordering Russia and strategic missile defense, which would "undermin[e] global stability and violat[e] the established correlation of forces in the nuclear-missile sphere."
The foreign policy document, by contrast, is a more polished, economically focused paper that largely -- but not entirely -- avoids such bellicose rhetoric. Yet a close reading makes clear that Russia's foreign policy objectives align closely with those reflected in the military doctrine.
For example, the foreign policy document seeks the "abandonment by the United States of unilateral actions aimed at deploying in Europe elements of a global missile defense that are capable of undermining Russia's deterrence potential, in favor of forming a 'missile defense pool' of interested states.
It seeks to revive the noxious European Security Treaty proposed by Medvedev last year, which would create an architecture that would subsume NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and succeed in the "containment of NATO's expansionist activities."
It also emphasizes cooperation with European Union member states that are "positively disposed toward the Russian Federation, primarily the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, and Spain" -- as opposed to the newer, eastern members.
ad_icon
Overall, the foreign policy document clearly supports establishment of a Russian sphere of influence, emphasizing the need to "consolidate the CIS (post-Soviet) area" and the imperative "actively to counter . . . attempts by forces outside the region to interfere in Russia's relations with the CIS countries."
It calls for bolstering the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization and consolidating Russia's Black Sea Fleet presence in Ukraine's Crimea and argues for the promotion of Russian language and culture in the countries along its borders.
It talks about providing "high-technology" energy assistance to the Georgian separatist region of Abkhazia but makes no mention of Georgia itself. So much for that country's territorial integrity.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia should be especially concerned about Russia's plans to expand its economic presence in the Baltic region "in light of the sharp fall in their investment attractiveness for countries of the E.U. and the substantial decline in the value of their national assets."
If assets in these countries are unappealing to European investors, one can only assume that Russia's interest is driven by a desire to reassert control over them through economic means. Indeed, a common theme of the document is the use of Russian money to buy up critical assets in other countries.
For example, the document seeks to "promote the consolidation of Russian business in strategic sectors of the Romanian economy"; it calls for drawing Ukraine "into the orbit of economic cooperation with Russia." It also pushes for a consortium to manage and develop Ukraine's gas-transportation system and the "acquisition by Russian investors of controlling shareholdings in major Ukrainian enterprises."
From the United States, the document seeks ratification of the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, which President Obama recently resubmitted to Congress, the lifting of unilateral sanctions on Russian enterprises and greater bilateral investment, along with the lifting of the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik amendment and the granting of most-favored-nation status.
It offers nothing in return. It praises Obama's interest in "multilateralism" but warns against the "weakening" of his political position in the United States, which could open the door to those who want to "turn back the clock" and presumably take a less friendly approach toward Moscow.
Meanwhile, the document promotes continued collaboration with Iran "across a broad spectrum of issues," including cooperation on nuclear energy, and greater military cooperation with the junta in Burma as well as increased arms sales to Latin America and the Caribbean.
This foreign policy document is not pro-Western at all. The officially released military doctrine may be a crude expression of Russian intentions, but the more nuanced, unofficial foreign policy document differs little in substance. During Medvedev's visit, no one should mistake this foreign policy document as reflecting a kinder Russia.
Russia under Medvedev remains a country with which we can still get some things done. But vast differences in our interests and values remain. They should not be swept under the rug.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
NATO's Door Remains Open To Ukraine
BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has said it will remain open to Ukraine after the country's decision to shelve its membership bid.
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO's doors "remain open," despite the Ukrainian parliament's approval of a bill preventing the country from joining NATO. The move was widely seen as further evidence the new government in Kyiv is overturning the previous government's pro-Western policies.
The draft law is expected to be signed by Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych in the weeks to come. The bill excludes the goal of integration into Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO would take no decision to reverse the Bucharest agreement, welcoming membership for both Ukraine and Georgia.
"The Bucharest decision still stands. We have no intention to change that decision….our door remains open," Rasmussen said.
But the NATO chief also stressed the organization is voluntary.
"It's for each individual country in Europe to decide its alliance affiliation, which means that it's also for Ukraine to decide how its relationship with NATO should develop in the coming years," Rasmussen added.
Ukraine's decision to shelve its plans to join NATO was crafted by the president himself. The parliamentary bill commits Ukraine to "a non-bloc policy which means non-participation in military-political alliances."
But NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that does not mean NATO's cooperation with Ukraine is over. He confirmed the Ukrainian Defense Minister would be participating in an upcoming NATO-Ukraine meeting.
"Our cooperation with Ukraine will continue within the existing framework and then it's for Ukraine to decide how this relationship and partnership should develop in the coming years."
Earlier this week, officials from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe expressed concern about media censorship and physical attacks on journalists in Ukraine - charges Viktor Yanukovych's government denies.
In Brussels, NATO officials publicly insist Ukraine makes its own decisions, and is welcome to join the alliance should it change its mind. But there is still lingering concern that Ukraine is drifting away from Europe, in an effort to get closer to Moscow.
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO's doors "remain open," despite the Ukrainian parliament's approval of a bill preventing the country from joining NATO. The move was widely seen as further evidence the new government in Kyiv is overturning the previous government's pro-Western policies.
The draft law is expected to be signed by Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych in the weeks to come. The bill excludes the goal of integration into Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO would take no decision to reverse the Bucharest agreement, welcoming membership for both Ukraine and Georgia.
"The Bucharest decision still stands. We have no intention to change that decision….our door remains open," Rasmussen said.
But the NATO chief also stressed the organization is voluntary.
"It's for each individual country in Europe to decide its alliance affiliation, which means that it's also for Ukraine to decide how its relationship with NATO should develop in the coming years," Rasmussen added.
Ukraine's decision to shelve its plans to join NATO was crafted by the president himself. The parliamentary bill commits Ukraine to "a non-bloc policy which means non-participation in military-political alliances."
But NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that does not mean NATO's cooperation with Ukraine is over. He confirmed the Ukrainian Defense Minister would be participating in an upcoming NATO-Ukraine meeting.
"Our cooperation with Ukraine will continue within the existing framework and then it's for Ukraine to decide how this relationship and partnership should develop in the coming years."
Earlier this week, officials from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe expressed concern about media censorship and physical attacks on journalists in Ukraine - charges Viktor Yanukovych's government denies.
In Brussels, NATO officials publicly insist Ukraine makes its own decisions, and is welcome to join the alliance should it change its mind. But there is still lingering concern that Ukraine is drifting away from Europe, in an effort to get closer to Moscow.
Friday, 28 May 2010
Ukraine Drops NATO Membership Aim
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine Thursday formally buried pursuit of NATO membership as an aim, its foreign minister declaring the issue had been taken off the policy agenda.
It was the most clear-cut statement by the new leadership of President Viktor Yanukovich that the issue was a dead letter in Ukraine for the conceivable future.
"Ukraine will continue developing its relations with the alliance, but the question of membership is now being removed from the agenda," the foreign minister, Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying.
"This corresponds to the way things are today," he added in comments to a foreign policy coordination meeting.
Yanukovich himself was separately quoted as saying by Interfax in the Western city of Lviv: "Entry into NATO is not realistic for our country today. NATO conditions would require us to have the support of the majority of the population."
Membership of the U.S.-led military alliance was ardently pursued by the pro-Western ex-president Viktor Yushchenko, despite widespread indifference in the country and lack of encouragement from the alliance itself.
But Yanukovich, who came to power in February and has tilted the ex-Soviet republic back toward Moscow in several areas of policy, has made clear NATO membership was being pushed on to the back burner as an objective.
He has equally told Moscow that Ukraine will stick by its policy of staying out of military blocs. He has not responded to an invitation by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to join the Russia-led CSTO security grouping.
Interfax quoted Gryshchenko as saying that NATO membership did not have the support of the majority of the population and had a "destructive effect" on state policy.
But his words indicated that Ukraine, whose Crimean peninsula is home to Russia's Black Sea fleet on an extended lease until 2042, would continue to take part in military and civil emergency programs with NATO countries.
It was the most clear-cut statement by the new leadership of President Viktor Yanukovich that the issue was a dead letter in Ukraine for the conceivable future.
"Ukraine will continue developing its relations with the alliance, but the question of membership is now being removed from the agenda," the foreign minister, Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying.
"This corresponds to the way things are today," he added in comments to a foreign policy coordination meeting.
Yanukovich himself was separately quoted as saying by Interfax in the Western city of Lviv: "Entry into NATO is not realistic for our country today. NATO conditions would require us to have the support of the majority of the population."
Membership of the U.S.-led military alliance was ardently pursued by the pro-Western ex-president Viktor Yushchenko, despite widespread indifference in the country and lack of encouragement from the alliance itself.
But Yanukovich, who came to power in February and has tilted the ex-Soviet republic back toward Moscow in several areas of policy, has made clear NATO membership was being pushed on to the back burner as an objective.
He has equally told Moscow that Ukraine will stick by its policy of staying out of military blocs. He has not responded to an invitation by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to join the Russia-led CSTO security grouping.
Interfax quoted Gryshchenko as saying that NATO membership did not have the support of the majority of the population and had a "destructive effect" on state policy.
But his words indicated that Ukraine, whose Crimean peninsula is home to Russia's Black Sea fleet on an extended lease until 2042, would continue to take part in military and civil emergency programs with NATO countries.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
Ukraine Unwilling To Reduce Cooperation With NATO
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukraine has no intention of reducing cooperation with NATO, the country's deputy foreign minister said on Wednesday.
"We are interested in the maintenance of political dialogue with NATO," Kostantyn Yeliseyev told a joint Ukraine-NATO working group on the country's defense program and national security in Kiev.
"Ukraine will continue to fulfill obligations in its relations with NATO... We intend to continue wholesale inner reforms and appreciate NATO's help in this direction," he added.
Yeliseyev said bilateral ties would continue to develop along the principles outlined in the Charter on Ukrainian-NATO partnership.
NATO's assistant secretary general for defense policy and planning said in an interview with a Ukrainian newspaper that the experience of the alliance's partnership with Kiev was "unprecedented," as the country maintains close ties with NATO yet expresses an unwillingness to join it.
"NATO will continue to provide help to Ukraine," Jiri Sedivy said, adding that NATO respects Ukraine's policy.
New Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has indicated that Ukraine will drop his predecessor's plans to attempt to seek NATO membership, a proposal that infuriated Russia, but has also indicated that he will try to maintain good ties with both Moscow and the West.
"We are interested in the maintenance of political dialogue with NATO," Kostantyn Yeliseyev told a joint Ukraine-NATO working group on the country's defense program and national security in Kiev.
"Ukraine will continue to fulfill obligations in its relations with NATO... We intend to continue wholesale inner reforms and appreciate NATO's help in this direction," he added.
Yeliseyev said bilateral ties would continue to develop along the principles outlined in the Charter on Ukrainian-NATO partnership.
NATO's assistant secretary general for defense policy and planning said in an interview with a Ukrainian newspaper that the experience of the alliance's partnership with Kiev was "unprecedented," as the country maintains close ties with NATO yet expresses an unwillingness to join it.
"NATO will continue to provide help to Ukraine," Jiri Sedivy said, adding that NATO respects Ukraine's policy.
New Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych has indicated that Ukraine will drop his predecessor's plans to attempt to seek NATO membership, a proposal that infuriated Russia, but has also indicated that he will try to maintain good ties with both Moscow and the West.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Atlantic Eye: As The Cookies Crumble
PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko -- the leader of the 2004 Orange Revolution, poisoned and disfigured by his enemies, a darling of the West -- is not-so-surprisingly ousted in the first round of presidential elections by two pro-Russian candidates -- one more corrupt than the other.
The Orange Revolution -- which should have brought Ukraine a democracy and free-market economy, closer to NATO and the European Union -- is all but dead.Yushchenko succumbed to his own arrogance failing to make the runoff for president and leaving the field to the ever corrupt Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and her equally corrupt predecessor Viktor Yanukovych.In 2005 Yanukovych, who had nearly stolen the disputed presidential elections through ballot stuffing before the Ukrainian Supreme Court threw out the results, was forced into a rerun won at that time by Yushchenko.Tymoshenko, one of Yushchenko's allies, was always the power behind the throne. Not to be underestimated and with an ego the size of Jupiter, Tymoshenko slowly took the reins of power around her and forced herself to be appointed Yushchenko's prime minister.Yushchenko would have been better off remaining Ukraine's Central Bank governor where he was actually doing an outstanding job.Tymoshenko became a billionaire in the early days through dubious business dealings.Yanukovych is a convicted criminal and former Soviet apparatchik.Nonetheless, in this choice between cholera and typhus -- and I know both -- I go with Yanukovych.
The Orange Revolution -- which should have brought Ukraine a democracy and free-market economy, closer to NATO and the European Union -- is all but dead.Yushchenko succumbed to his own arrogance failing to make the runoff for president and leaving the field to the ever corrupt Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and her equally corrupt predecessor Viktor Yanukovych.In 2005 Yanukovych, who had nearly stolen the disputed presidential elections through ballot stuffing before the Ukrainian Supreme Court threw out the results, was forced into a rerun won at that time by Yushchenko.Tymoshenko, one of Yushchenko's allies, was always the power behind the throne. Not to be underestimated and with an ego the size of Jupiter, Tymoshenko slowly took the reins of power around her and forced herself to be appointed Yushchenko's prime minister.Yushchenko would have been better off remaining Ukraine's Central Bank governor where he was actually doing an outstanding job.Tymoshenko became a billionaire in the early days through dubious business dealings.Yanukovych is a convicted criminal and former Soviet apparatchik.Nonetheless, in this choice between cholera and typhus -- and I know both -- I go with Yanukovych.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
NATO Military Chief Courts Russia's Help
NATO's military chief said Wednesday that he would like to explore the possibility of expanding the alliance's military cooperation with Russia, especially regarding the war in Afghanistan.
Admiral James Stavridis said this could include Russian help in maintaining the large fleet of Soviet-built helicopters being used by the alliance and Afghan security forces, as well as other logistical assistance.
Russia has no forces in Afghanistan, but it has kept open a land and air route through its territory and through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan — an alternate to NATO's principal supply route through Pakistan, which often has been attacked.
Russia also has trained hundreds of Afghan government anti-narcotics officers.
"There are many zones of cooperation that we can explore," Stavridis said during an interview in Kabul at the conclusion of his three-day visit to NATO troops in Afghanistan.
The alliance's relations with Moscow have largely normalized since they were frozen in the aftermath of the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. Regular contacts at the ministerial level resumed last year.
At their summit with Russia in April, NATO leaders emphasized the need for cooperation with Moscow on issues of common interest. These include the war in Afghanistan, counter-piracy, and combating terrorism and drug trafficking.
In December, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen traveled to Moscow for talks with President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The meetings ended without specific undertakings on military-to-military cooperation, but both sides said they were encouraged by the progress in political relations.
Some analysts have suggested that the next step should be a meeting between Russia's and NATO's top commanders that would look at boosting military cooperation.
"I do not have a planned trip, but I'm always open to conversations with my military counterparts," Stavridis said. NATO's secretary-general "has taken the first step, and I am waiting for his guidance on this."
Moscow has been critical of some aspects of the Afghan war, but Russia has repeatedly noted concern about the possible expansion of Islamic militancy in Central Asia and the large expansion of heroin and opium smuggling that it says would result from a Taliban victory.
Russia's envoy to NATO,Dmitry Rogozin, this month urged NATO to remain committed to Afghanistan until that nation's security forces are able to handle the Taliban insurgency on their own.
"I'm open to any discussion of Russian assistance to Afghanistan," Stavridis said. "They have been helpful in our northern supply routes, and the next step would be some form of logistics support."
In Moscow, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry refused an immediate comment Wednesday, saying foreign military affairs were outside his area of expertise.
Stavridis mentioned the possibility of helping NATO security forces maintain the Soviet-built helicopters being used by both the alliance and the Afghan army and police.
"A lot of equipment of the Afghan security forces is of Russian design, and possibly the Russians could help," he said.
In November, Moscow sold four Mi-17 transport helicopters to Afghanistan — the first new aircraft delivered to Afghanistan in two decades.
Russia also has sold small arms and other weapons systems to the internationally backed Afghan government for several years and provided $220 million worth of military aid, including aviation equipment, an air-defense system for the Kabul airport, communications gear, vehicles, repair equipment and spare parts.
Russia currently is helping train 21 Afghan drug police officers at a facility outside Moscow in a joint project with NATO, and next year it will train 220 Afghan policemen, Russian officials say.
Stavridis said other areas of military cooperation could include a dialogue on the lessons learned from the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan. The disastrous 10-year conflict ended with a Soviet withdrawal in 1989.
"We need to understand their experience, Russia's experience. There is something we may be able to learn from," he said.
Stavridis pointed to other fields in which NATO and Russia were cooperating closely, including naval anti-piracy patrols in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden, and a similar counterterrorism operation in the western Mediterranean.
Admiral James Stavridis said this could include Russian help in maintaining the large fleet of Soviet-built helicopters being used by the alliance and Afghan security forces, as well as other logistical assistance.
Russia has no forces in Afghanistan, but it has kept open a land and air route through its territory and through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan — an alternate to NATO's principal supply route through Pakistan, which often has been attacked.
Russia also has trained hundreds of Afghan government anti-narcotics officers.
"There are many zones of cooperation that we can explore," Stavridis said during an interview in Kabul at the conclusion of his three-day visit to NATO troops in Afghanistan.
The alliance's relations with Moscow have largely normalized since they were frozen in the aftermath of the war between Russia and Georgia in August 2008. Regular contacts at the ministerial level resumed last year.
At their summit with Russia in April, NATO leaders emphasized the need for cooperation with Moscow on issues of common interest. These include the war in Afghanistan, counter-piracy, and combating terrorism and drug trafficking.
In December, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen traveled to Moscow for talks with President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. The meetings ended without specific undertakings on military-to-military cooperation, but both sides said they were encouraged by the progress in political relations.
Some analysts have suggested that the next step should be a meeting between Russia's and NATO's top commanders that would look at boosting military cooperation.
"I do not have a planned trip, but I'm always open to conversations with my military counterparts," Stavridis said. NATO's secretary-general "has taken the first step, and I am waiting for his guidance on this."
Moscow has been critical of some aspects of the Afghan war, but Russia has repeatedly noted concern about the possible expansion of Islamic militancy in Central Asia and the large expansion of heroin and opium smuggling that it says would result from a Taliban victory.
Russia's envoy to NATO,Dmitry Rogozin, this month urged NATO to remain committed to Afghanistan until that nation's security forces are able to handle the Taliban insurgency on their own.
"I'm open to any discussion of Russian assistance to Afghanistan," Stavridis said. "They have been helpful in our northern supply routes, and the next step would be some form of logistics support."
In Moscow, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry refused an immediate comment Wednesday, saying foreign military affairs were outside his area of expertise.
Stavridis mentioned the possibility of helping NATO security forces maintain the Soviet-built helicopters being used by both the alliance and the Afghan army and police.
"A lot of equipment of the Afghan security forces is of Russian design, and possibly the Russians could help," he said.
In November, Moscow sold four Mi-17 transport helicopters to Afghanistan — the first new aircraft delivered to Afghanistan in two decades.
Russia also has sold small arms and other weapons systems to the internationally backed Afghan government for several years and provided $220 million worth of military aid, including aviation equipment, an air-defense system for the Kabul airport, communications gear, vehicles, repair equipment and spare parts.
Russia currently is helping train 21 Afghan drug police officers at a facility outside Moscow in a joint project with NATO, and next year it will train 220 Afghan policemen, Russian officials say.
Stavridis said other areas of military cooperation could include a dialogue on the lessons learned from the Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan. The disastrous 10-year conflict ended with a Soviet withdrawal in 1989.
"We need to understand their experience, Russia's experience. There is something we may be able to learn from," he said.
Stavridis pointed to other fields in which NATO and Russia were cooperating closely, including naval anti-piracy patrols in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden, and a similar counterterrorism operation in the western Mediterranean.
Tuesday, 22 September 2009
Black Sea Wars
WASHINGTON, DC -- In August, the Georgian navy seized a Turkish tanker carrying fuel to Abkhazia, Georgia’s former province whose declaration of independence a year ago is recognized by Russia but not the West.
The Turkish captain was sentenced to 24 years. When Ankara protested, he was released. Abkhazia has now threatened to sink any Georgian ship interfering in its “territorial waters,” but it has no navy.Russia, however, has a Black Sea Fleet and a treaty of friendship with Abkhazia, and has notified Tbilisi that the Russian coast guard will assure, peacefully, the sea commerce of Abkhazia.Not backing down, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili – who launched and lost a war for South Ossetia in 48 hours in August 2008 – has declared the blockade of Abkhazia, which he claims as Georgian national territory, will remain in force. And he has just appointed as defense minister a 29-year-old ex-penitentiary boss with a questionable record on human rights who wants to tighten ties to NATO.We have here the makings of a naval clash that Georgia, given Russian air, naval, and land forces in the eastern Black Sea, will lose.What is Saakashvili up to? He seems intent on provoking a new crisis to force NATO to stand with him and bring the United States in on his side – against Russia. Ultimate goal: Return the issue of his lost provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back onto the world’s front burner.While such a crisis may be in the interests of Saakashvili and his Russophobic U.S neoconservative retainers, it is the furthest thing from U.S. national interests. President Obama should have Joe Biden, Saakashvili’s pal, phone him up and instruct him thus: “Mikheil, if you interfere with the sea commerce of Abkhazia, and provoke Russia into a Black Sea war, you fight it yourself. The Sixth Fleet is not going to steam into the Black Sea and pull your chestnuts out of the fire, old buddy. It will be your war, not ours.”Nor is the Abkhazian crisis the only one brewing in the Black Sea.Last month, Russian naval troops blocked Ukrainian bailiffs from seizing navigational equipment from a lighthouse outside Sevastopol, the Crimean base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet for two centuries.The Sevastopol lease, however, runs out in 2017. And Kiev has informed Moscow there will be no renewal. Russia’s fleet will have to vacate Sevastopol and the Crimea, which belonged to Russia before Nikita Khrushchev ceded the entire peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in a “brotherly gesture” while Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union.Russia also bears a deep animus toward Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, for trying to bring his country into NATO. Yushchenko, whose approval rating is in single digits, has been seen, ever since the U.S.-backed Orange Revolution of 2004 that brought him to power, as America’s man in Kiev.Moreover, as religious, cultural, ethnic, and historic ties between Kiev and Moscow go back centuries, Russians remain unreconciled to the loss of what they regard as the cradle of their country.What is America’s vital interest in all these quarrels? Zero.The idea, mentioned in hawkish quarters, of having the Sixth Fleet take over the vacated naval base at Sevastopol would be as rash and provocative an act as having Chinese warships move into Guantanamo, were Havana to expel the United States.But that is unlikely to happen. For Obama appears to be rolling back the George W. Bush policy of expanding NATO into former republics of the Soviet Union.Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are already members, and Bush and John McCain were anxious to bring in Ukraine and Georgia. But, as Bush’s inaction during the Russia-Georgia war revealed, America is not going to fight Russia over who controls Abkhazia, North or South Ossetia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya, or Georgia. All are beyond any vital interest or legitimate sphere of influence of the United States.With his cancellation of the U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – a shield designed to defend against a nonexistent Iranian ICBM – Obama sent two messages to Moscow.First, Obama believes entente with Russia is a surer guarantee of the peace and security of Eastern Europe than any U.S. weapons system. Second, Obama puts Washington-Moscow ties before any U.S. military ties to NATO allies in Eastern Europe.Which means NATO is approaching an existential crisis.Almost all NATO troops, except U.S., are gone from Iraq, and the alliance’s minimal commitment to Afghanistan is ending with no victory in sight. NATO’s expansion eastward has come to a halt. Ukraine and Georgia are not coming in. And the United States is not going to place troops, warships, or missiles any closer than they are now to Russia’s frontiers.“NATO must go out of area, or go out of business,” said Sen. Richard Lugar at the Cold War’s end. NATO went out of area, and is coming back with its tail between its legs. The alternative arises.
The Turkish captain was sentenced to 24 years. When Ankara protested, he was released. Abkhazia has now threatened to sink any Georgian ship interfering in its “territorial waters,” but it has no navy.Russia, however, has a Black Sea Fleet and a treaty of friendship with Abkhazia, and has notified Tbilisi that the Russian coast guard will assure, peacefully, the sea commerce of Abkhazia.Not backing down, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili – who launched and lost a war for South Ossetia in 48 hours in August 2008 – has declared the blockade of Abkhazia, which he claims as Georgian national territory, will remain in force. And he has just appointed as defense minister a 29-year-old ex-penitentiary boss with a questionable record on human rights who wants to tighten ties to NATO.We have here the makings of a naval clash that Georgia, given Russian air, naval, and land forces in the eastern Black Sea, will lose.What is Saakashvili up to? He seems intent on provoking a new crisis to force NATO to stand with him and bring the United States in on his side – against Russia. Ultimate goal: Return the issue of his lost provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back onto the world’s front burner.While such a crisis may be in the interests of Saakashvili and his Russophobic U.S neoconservative retainers, it is the furthest thing from U.S. national interests. President Obama should have Joe Biden, Saakashvili’s pal, phone him up and instruct him thus: “Mikheil, if you interfere with the sea commerce of Abkhazia, and provoke Russia into a Black Sea war, you fight it yourself. The Sixth Fleet is not going to steam into the Black Sea and pull your chestnuts out of the fire, old buddy. It will be your war, not ours.”Nor is the Abkhazian crisis the only one brewing in the Black Sea.Last month, Russian naval troops blocked Ukrainian bailiffs from seizing navigational equipment from a lighthouse outside Sevastopol, the Crimean base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet for two centuries.The Sevastopol lease, however, runs out in 2017. And Kiev has informed Moscow there will be no renewal. Russia’s fleet will have to vacate Sevastopol and the Crimea, which belonged to Russia before Nikita Khrushchev ceded the entire peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in a “brotherly gesture” while Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union.Russia also bears a deep animus toward Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, for trying to bring his country into NATO. Yushchenko, whose approval rating is in single digits, has been seen, ever since the U.S.-backed Orange Revolution of 2004 that brought him to power, as America’s man in Kiev.Moreover, as religious, cultural, ethnic, and historic ties between Kiev and Moscow go back centuries, Russians remain unreconciled to the loss of what they regard as the cradle of their country.What is America’s vital interest in all these quarrels? Zero.The idea, mentioned in hawkish quarters, of having the Sixth Fleet take over the vacated naval base at Sevastopol would be as rash and provocative an act as having Chinese warships move into Guantanamo, were Havana to expel the United States.But that is unlikely to happen. For Obama appears to be rolling back the George W. Bush policy of expanding NATO into former republics of the Soviet Union.Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are already members, and Bush and John McCain were anxious to bring in Ukraine and Georgia. But, as Bush’s inaction during the Russia-Georgia war revealed, America is not going to fight Russia over who controls Abkhazia, North or South Ossetia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya, or Georgia. All are beyond any vital interest or legitimate sphere of influence of the United States.With his cancellation of the U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – a shield designed to defend against a nonexistent Iranian ICBM – Obama sent two messages to Moscow.First, Obama believes entente with Russia is a surer guarantee of the peace and security of Eastern Europe than any U.S. weapons system. Second, Obama puts Washington-Moscow ties before any U.S. military ties to NATO allies in Eastern Europe.Which means NATO is approaching an existential crisis.Almost all NATO troops, except U.S., are gone from Iraq, and the alliance’s minimal commitment to Afghanistan is ending with no victory in sight. NATO’s expansion eastward has come to a halt. Ukraine and Georgia are not coming in. And the United States is not going to place troops, warships, or missiles any closer than they are now to Russia’s frontiers.“NATO must go out of area, or go out of business,” said Sen. Richard Lugar at the Cold War’s end. NATO went out of area, and is coming back with its tail between its legs. The alternative arises.
Ukraine Leader Yushchenko Optimistic About NATO Membership, Re-Election Chances
NEW YORK, NY -- Ukraine President Viktor Yushchenko says he is optimistic that his country will join NATO, declaring the tide of public opinion in the former Soviet republic is swinging in favor of membership in the Western military alliance.
Yushchenko, who faces a tough re-election battle in January, also disputed reports that only about 5 percent of Ukrainians support his re-election in January, saying his poll numbers show about 10 percent backing with the number rising.The embattled Ukrainian leader spoke Monday with The Associated Press shortly after arriving in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. He said NATO membership, which the United States supports, was not a matter for outsiders, like Russia, to decide.The Kremlin, smarting over NATO expansion into its former Baltic republics and Central and Eastern European satellites after the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, has put extreme pressure on Ukraine not to join the alliance.But Yushchenko declared he was determined to bring Ukraine into the Western alliance, which was established after World War II to counter Soviet expansionism in Europe."I would like to underline that if you analyze the history of Ukraine in the 20th century," Yushchenko said, "you will see that from 1917 to 1991 Ukraine declared its independence six times and five times we lost it."He blamed the Soviet Union for the reversals.Yushchenko, who looked well after he was poisoned under suspicious circumstances as he successfully fought for a first term as president in 2004, declared that 33 percent of Ukrainians support NATO membership while the number opposed has slipped to 27 percent. He said that contrasted with figures four years ago of only 14 percent favoring alliance membership with 30 percent to 37 percent opposed. Independent polling in the country still shows a majority against joining NATO."We have good dynamics, and month by month the number of NATO supporters is growing," he said. "I'm a great optimist. I'm sure Ukraine will follow the path of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria."He pointed also to the Russian invasion of Georgia, another former Soviet republic, in August 2008 as a strong selling point for NATO membership, which includes a guarantee that an attack on any member state will be viewed as an attack on the alliance as a whole.The Russians swept into Georgia, also a candidate for NATO membership, after it sought to bring the breakaway region of South Ossetia back under central government control.After the invasion, Russia declared that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway region in Georgia, were independent states under Moscow's protection.Appearing unfazed by his lack of support with the January election just four months away, Yushchenko said: "I plan to win.""I have done some things I can be proud of," he said. "In the last four years our GDP grew 7 to 7 1/2 percent (annually). ... We made considerable social changes. We took care of orphans. ... Unemployment is the lowest of the 18 years of our independence. Living standards are the best in 18 years. We've instituted free speech, free press, free elections."But this year Ukraine's economy is among the worst suffering in Europe from the global economic recession and the country has relied on an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund to avoid a complete meltdown. The IMF has predicted that Ukraine's economy will shrink by 14 percent this year.In June, parliamentary auditors reported that unemployment had risen to 879,000 people since last year as the metals and chemical industries laid off thousands of workers.Independent polling shows Yushchenko likely to lose the presidential election. Polls have the incumbent trailing both Moscow-aligned Viktor Yanukovych, whom Yushchenko overwhelmed in the so-called "Orange Revolution" in 2004, and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. She was a close ally of Yushchenko in the last election, but they have become bitter enemies and do not speak to each other.
Yushchenko, who faces a tough re-election battle in January, also disputed reports that only about 5 percent of Ukrainians support his re-election in January, saying his poll numbers show about 10 percent backing with the number rising.The embattled Ukrainian leader spoke Monday with The Associated Press shortly after arriving in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. He said NATO membership, which the United States supports, was not a matter for outsiders, like Russia, to decide.The Kremlin, smarting over NATO expansion into its former Baltic republics and Central and Eastern European satellites after the Soviet Union broke apart in 1991, has put extreme pressure on Ukraine not to join the alliance.But Yushchenko declared he was determined to bring Ukraine into the Western alliance, which was established after World War II to counter Soviet expansionism in Europe."I would like to underline that if you analyze the history of Ukraine in the 20th century," Yushchenko said, "you will see that from 1917 to 1991 Ukraine declared its independence six times and five times we lost it."He blamed the Soviet Union for the reversals.Yushchenko, who looked well after he was poisoned under suspicious circumstances as he successfully fought for a first term as president in 2004, declared that 33 percent of Ukrainians support NATO membership while the number opposed has slipped to 27 percent. He said that contrasted with figures four years ago of only 14 percent favoring alliance membership with 30 percent to 37 percent opposed. Independent polling in the country still shows a majority against joining NATO."We have good dynamics, and month by month the number of NATO supporters is growing," he said. "I'm a great optimist. I'm sure Ukraine will follow the path of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria."He pointed also to the Russian invasion of Georgia, another former Soviet republic, in August 2008 as a strong selling point for NATO membership, which includes a guarantee that an attack on any member state will be viewed as an attack on the alliance as a whole.The Russians swept into Georgia, also a candidate for NATO membership, after it sought to bring the breakaway region of South Ossetia back under central government control.After the invasion, Russia declared that South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another breakaway region in Georgia, were independent states under Moscow's protection.Appearing unfazed by his lack of support with the January election just four months away, Yushchenko said: "I plan to win.""I have done some things I can be proud of," he said. "In the last four years our GDP grew 7 to 7 1/2 percent (annually). ... We made considerable social changes. We took care of orphans. ... Unemployment is the lowest of the 18 years of our independence. Living standards are the best in 18 years. We've instituted free speech, free press, free elections."But this year Ukraine's economy is among the worst suffering in Europe from the global economic recession and the country has relied on an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund to avoid a complete meltdown. The IMF has predicted that Ukraine's economy will shrink by 14 percent this year.In June, parliamentary auditors reported that unemployment had risen to 879,000 people since last year as the metals and chemical industries laid off thousands of workers.Independent polling shows Yushchenko likely to lose the presidential election. Polls have the incumbent trailing both Moscow-aligned Viktor Yanukovych, whom Yushchenko overwhelmed in the so-called "Orange Revolution" in 2004, and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. She was a close ally of Yushchenko in the last election, but they have become bitter enemies and do not speak to each other.
Saturday, 19 September 2009
NATO Envoy Says No Missiles to Kaliningrad
BRUSSELS — New missiles will not be deployed in the Kaliningrad enclave now that the United States has dropped plans to build an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia's envoy to NATO said on Friday.
Dmitry Rogozin also welcomed a proposal from NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for more cooperation with Russia on anti-missile systems.
"It was very positive, very constructive and we have to analyze together all the sec-gen's proposals for the new beginning of NATO-Russia cooperation," Rogozin told a news conference.
On Russian plans to deploy medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad, which borders Poland and Lithuania, he said: "I hope you can understand logic ... if we have no radars or no missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland, we don't need to find some response."
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged the Western alliance and Russia to consider linking their defensive missile systems in a policy speech Friday, as well as said that Russia should join other global powers in pressing Iran to abandon its nuclear aspirations.
Rasmussen said NATO and Russia have a shared interest in combating the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missile technology in other countries.
"If North Korea stays nuclear and if Iran becomes nuclear, some of their neighbors might feel compelled to follow their example," Rasmussen said in a policy speech.
The secretary-general also encouraged Russia to play a role in exerting pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program.
"What I would expect is that Russia will join us in putting maximum political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to stop Iran's nuclear aspirations," he said.
Dmitry Rogozin also welcomed a proposal from NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for more cooperation with Russia on anti-missile systems.
"It was very positive, very constructive and we have to analyze together all the sec-gen's proposals for the new beginning of NATO-Russia cooperation," Rogozin told a news conference.
On Russian plans to deploy medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad, which borders Poland and Lithuania, he said: "I hope you can understand logic ... if we have no radars or no missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland, we don't need to find some response."
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged the Western alliance and Russia to consider linking their defensive missile systems in a policy speech Friday, as well as said that Russia should join other global powers in pressing Iran to abandon its nuclear aspirations.
Rasmussen said NATO and Russia have a shared interest in combating the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missile technology in other countries.
"If North Korea stays nuclear and if Iran becomes nuclear, some of their neighbors might feel compelled to follow their example," Rasmussen said in a policy speech.
The secretary-general also encouraged Russia to play a role in exerting pressure on Iran to give up its nuclear program.
"What I would expect is that Russia will join us in putting maximum political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to stop Iran's nuclear aspirations," he said.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Ukraine Adopts National Program To Move Towards NATO Accession
KIEV, Ukraine -- Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko signed a decree on Friday approving a national program for 2009 aimed at preparing the country to join NATO, the presidential press service said.The document gives the Ukrainian government one month to draft and adopt an action plan to implement the program in 2009.The Cabinet was also instructed to submit by December 1 a draft national program for 2010, and to follow the same procedure in the future until Ukraine is granted NATO membership.Ukraine has been pursuing NATO membership since pro-Western Yushchenko was inaugurated in January 2005.Ukraine and Georgia's NATO bids were strongly backed by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, but were turned down due to pressure from Germany and France at a 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.However, NATO has stated that the two countries will join at an unspecified date in the future.Both countries have also been included in the alliance's Partnership for Peace program, aimed at allowing "partner countries to build up an individual relationship with NATO, choosing their own priorities for cooperation."The implementation of Ukraine's national program on NATO accession will be checked annually by NATO experts.New NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Monday that Ukraine and Georgia were still far from joining NATO, but added that the membership remained open to countries that meet NATO standards.
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Ukraine And Georgia’s Accession To NATO “Hypothetical”
MOSCOW, Russia -- Ukraine and Georgia are not ready to become NATO members, and their accession at the moment is only “hypothetical”, the new NATO Secretary General said.
Under his leadership, improving relations with Russia will be NATO's second top priority, after resolving the situation Afghanistan, Rasmussen said:“I believe that during my term as NATO Secretary General we should develop a true strategic partnership with Russia. We should extend practical co-operation in areas where we share security interests. There is clearly scope for us to work together on counter-terrorism, on Afghanistan, on piracy, on non-proliferation, and many other areas as well.”He said he hoped the disputes and differences that the alliance and Russia have between them will not “poison” their relationship. NATO expansion is one of the major sticking points.Moscow believes that the alliance’s expansion into Ukraine and Georgia could seriously destabilize the situation on the European continent. Earlier, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister said that NATO’s policy of support for Tbilisi had provoked Georgia’s aggression in the Caucasus in August 2008. Supporting Kiev’s membership bid is also leading to instability in the country, since the majority of its population is against joining NATO.Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said, “I believe it’s important to hear NATO say that they’ve ceased pocketing whatever they see lay in temptation’s way”.“Like they think Ukraine is there to pocket, to make a forced political sex change operation on Ukraine,” he is quoted as saying by Interfax.Rasmussen reiterated the statement made by his predecessor Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, saying that he didn’t see Georgia and Ukraine as ready to become NATO members at the moment. He said, however, that the alliance will continue to support their membership bid, as was promised at the summit in Brussels in 2008.Some experts say Rasmussen’s promises echo those by previous NATO leaders – ones that no one has ever kept.“I don’t think that NATO and Russia have ever been doing different things. The problem is that they always look eye to eye, but haven’t managed to find a lot in common in their visions of the most crucial European security problems,” said Timofey Bordachyov, from the European Studies Centre at the Higher School of Economics.“As I remember, every new Secretary General started his term by saying that he wants to revitalize relations with Russia, and none has ever brought too many benefits to both partners,” he said.Meanwhile Afghanistan remains the alliance’s largest challenge. As Danish Prime Minister, Rasmussen strongly supported the US-led war on terror, contributing troops to NATO’s Afghan mission.Now, while Barack Obama has increased the American military effort there, Europe is reluctant to match this boost. And as France has returned into the NATO military command structure after 40 years of being absent, analysts say the new chief will be walking a tight rope between Washington and its European allies.“Some of our European friends, mainly France in NATO, expected that with the departure of George W. Bush they could increase their influence in NATO and privatize this institution, making it more European-oriented. And of course, the new Secretary General, as a pro-American politician, is a big disappointment for them,” Bordachyov said.Konstantin Kosachev, the Head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma said that he believes that Rasmussen won’t place the disagreements with Russia in the foreground.“At this stage Rasmussen demonstrates serious intention to unite rather than divide Europe on the outer borders of NATO,” he said in an interview with ITAR-TASS.Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said the new NATO chief will possibly visit Moscow in autumn this year. He added that Rasmussen would be most welcome, but “we would like the new Secretary General to bring something positive here rather than just new requests over Afghanistan and so on”.“Our generous Russian soul is ready to help, but it can’t last forever. We can’t be paying in advance all the time, we also want to get something in exchange,” Rogozin is quoted as saying by Interfax.Speaking on the future of NATO, Rasmussen announced he has gathered a 12-strong panel of experts, chaired by former-US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, to work on a new strategic development plan. He also called on the public to submit their views on the policies of NATO through the organization’s website.Anders Rasmussen, 56, has become the 12th Secretary General in NATO’s 60-year history.
Under his leadership, improving relations with Russia will be NATO's second top priority, after resolving the situation Afghanistan, Rasmussen said:“I believe that during my term as NATO Secretary General we should develop a true strategic partnership with Russia. We should extend practical co-operation in areas where we share security interests. There is clearly scope for us to work together on counter-terrorism, on Afghanistan, on piracy, on non-proliferation, and many other areas as well.”He said he hoped the disputes and differences that the alliance and Russia have between them will not “poison” their relationship. NATO expansion is one of the major sticking points.Moscow believes that the alliance’s expansion into Ukraine and Georgia could seriously destabilize the situation on the European continent. Earlier, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister said that NATO’s policy of support for Tbilisi had provoked Georgia’s aggression in the Caucasus in August 2008. Supporting Kiev’s membership bid is also leading to instability in the country, since the majority of its population is against joining NATO.Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said, “I believe it’s important to hear NATO say that they’ve ceased pocketing whatever they see lay in temptation’s way”.“Like they think Ukraine is there to pocket, to make a forced political sex change operation on Ukraine,” he is quoted as saying by Interfax.Rasmussen reiterated the statement made by his predecessor Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, saying that he didn’t see Georgia and Ukraine as ready to become NATO members at the moment. He said, however, that the alliance will continue to support their membership bid, as was promised at the summit in Brussels in 2008.Some experts say Rasmussen’s promises echo those by previous NATO leaders – ones that no one has ever kept.“I don’t think that NATO and Russia have ever been doing different things. The problem is that they always look eye to eye, but haven’t managed to find a lot in common in their visions of the most crucial European security problems,” said Timofey Bordachyov, from the European Studies Centre at the Higher School of Economics.“As I remember, every new Secretary General started his term by saying that he wants to revitalize relations with Russia, and none has ever brought too many benefits to both partners,” he said.Meanwhile Afghanistan remains the alliance’s largest challenge. As Danish Prime Minister, Rasmussen strongly supported the US-led war on terror, contributing troops to NATO’s Afghan mission.Now, while Barack Obama has increased the American military effort there, Europe is reluctant to match this boost. And as France has returned into the NATO military command structure after 40 years of being absent, analysts say the new chief will be walking a tight rope between Washington and its European allies.“Some of our European friends, mainly France in NATO, expected that with the departure of George W. Bush they could increase their influence in NATO and privatize this institution, making it more European-oriented. And of course, the new Secretary General, as a pro-American politician, is a big disappointment for them,” Bordachyov said.Konstantin Kosachev, the Head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian State Duma said that he believes that Rasmussen won’t place the disagreements with Russia in the foreground.“At this stage Rasmussen demonstrates serious intention to unite rather than divide Europe on the outer borders of NATO,” he said in an interview with ITAR-TASS.Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said the new NATO chief will possibly visit Moscow in autumn this year. He added that Rasmussen would be most welcome, but “we would like the new Secretary General to bring something positive here rather than just new requests over Afghanistan and so on”.“Our generous Russian soul is ready to help, but it can’t last forever. We can’t be paying in advance all the time, we also want to get something in exchange,” Rogozin is quoted as saying by Interfax.Speaking on the future of NATO, Rasmussen announced he has gathered a 12-strong panel of experts, chaired by former-US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, to work on a new strategic development plan. He also called on the public to submit their views on the policies of NATO through the organization’s website.Anders Rasmussen, 56, has become the 12th Secretary General in NATO’s 60-year history.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Biden: US Supports Ukraine's NATO Bid
KIEV, Ukraine -- Washington supports Ukraine's bid to join NATO, and the former Soviet republic is free to choose its allies regardless of what other nations want, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden told Ukraine's president on Tuesday.
Both statements were aimed at Russia, which vehemently opposes NATO membership for its neighbors and is uncomfortable with their desire for greater economic and political integration with the West.Russia warned the U.S. against playing "under-the-carpet games" or building its ties with Ukraine at Moscow's expense.Biden met with President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev, then said in a speech later that if Ukraine chose to join NATO, "which I believe you have, we strongly support that."Polls, however, have shown a majority of Ukrainians oppose NATO membership.Ukrainian officials were looking for signals that Washington's effort to improve ties with Moscow would not hurt Ukraine's push for integration with the West. Ukrainians also are looking for support as Russia acts to reassert some control over its former Soviet satellite states — most blatantly with its invasion of Georgia last year."We don't recognize, and I want to reiterate this, any spheres of influence. We do not recognize anyone else's right to dictate to any other country what alliance it should seek to belong to, or what relationships, bilateral relationships, you have," Biden said.President Barack Obama stressed at a July 6-8 summit in Moscow that "NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation." Obama's speech was part of a White House effort to form a more productive relationship with Russia. Those ties reached post Cold-War lows after last year's Russian-Georgian war.Better ties with Moscow "will not come at Ukraine's expense," Biden said. "To the contrary, I believe it can actually benefit Ukraine. The more substantive relationship we have with Moscow, the more we can defuse the zero-sum thinking about our relations with Russia's neighbors."Welcoming Biden, Yushchenko called Ukraine a "European country where democracy rules.""We are going forward, we have chosen a European path," Yushchenko said.Biden was to meet Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko later Tuesday, as well as key opposition leaders who are also likely to challenge Yushchenko in January's presidential election.Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were allies in the 2004 Orange Revolution, which brought Yushchenko to power. They are now bitter foes, and the rivalry has hampered the government's response to the global economic crisis, which has hit Ukraine hard.That has allowed Viktor Yanukovych, the Moscow-backed presidential candidate who lost the 2004 election but is very popular in Ukraine's largely Russian-speaking east, to come back into the running for the January vote.Biden is also set to meet with Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the reformist former parliament speaker, who plans to run for president.Russia was watching Biden's visit to its former Soviet backyard with keen interest, suspicious that Washington is out to block any moves to bring Ukraine and Georgia back into Moscow's orbit.Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told a weekly news conference that Moscow is "not usurping or monopolizing anyone's rights," and that all nations are free to choose their partners.But in a warning to Washington, he added, "It's important that this be done transparently, without under-the-carpet games and not at the expense of others' interests."He also suggested the U.S. should keep Ukraine's traditional ties with Russia in mind, saying the regional context and "historical specifics" should be taken into account.The U.S. has repeatedly denied that it seeks to dictate who should rule in any democratic country.Biden on Wednesday visits Georgia, where the opposition is demanding President Mikhail Saakashvili resign over his handling of the war with Russia and what they say is his retreat from democracy.Saakashvili has vowed not to resign before the end of his term in 2013.The Russian army quickly crushed the Georgian army last August after Georgia attacked its own breakaway province of South Ossetia to try to bring it back under control.Thousands of Russian troops remain in South Ossetia and another separatist-held Georgian enclave, Abkhazia, and Russia has recognized both regions as independent nations.Washington said it did not support Georgia's attempt to retake South Ossetia by force.Saakashvili, who had committed thousands of troops for U.S.-led missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, pleaded for military support from Washington during the fighting, but the U.S. did not intervene.
Both statements were aimed at Russia, which vehemently opposes NATO membership for its neighbors and is uncomfortable with their desire for greater economic and political integration with the West.Russia warned the U.S. against playing "under-the-carpet games" or building its ties with Ukraine at Moscow's expense.Biden met with President Viktor Yushchenko in Kiev, then said in a speech later that if Ukraine chose to join NATO, "which I believe you have, we strongly support that."Polls, however, have shown a majority of Ukrainians oppose NATO membership.Ukrainian officials were looking for signals that Washington's effort to improve ties with Moscow would not hurt Ukraine's push for integration with the West. Ukrainians also are looking for support as Russia acts to reassert some control over its former Soviet satellite states — most blatantly with its invasion of Georgia last year."We don't recognize, and I want to reiterate this, any spheres of influence. We do not recognize anyone else's right to dictate to any other country what alliance it should seek to belong to, or what relationships, bilateral relationships, you have," Biden said.President Barack Obama stressed at a July 6-8 summit in Moscow that "NATO seeks collaboration with Russia, not confrontation." Obama's speech was part of a White House effort to form a more productive relationship with Russia. Those ties reached post Cold-War lows after last year's Russian-Georgian war.Better ties with Moscow "will not come at Ukraine's expense," Biden said. "To the contrary, I believe it can actually benefit Ukraine. The more substantive relationship we have with Moscow, the more we can defuse the zero-sum thinking about our relations with Russia's neighbors."Welcoming Biden, Yushchenko called Ukraine a "European country where democracy rules.""We are going forward, we have chosen a European path," Yushchenko said.Biden was to meet Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko later Tuesday, as well as key opposition leaders who are also likely to challenge Yushchenko in January's presidential election.Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were allies in the 2004 Orange Revolution, which brought Yushchenko to power. They are now bitter foes, and the rivalry has hampered the government's response to the global economic crisis, which has hit Ukraine hard.That has allowed Viktor Yanukovych, the Moscow-backed presidential candidate who lost the 2004 election but is very popular in Ukraine's largely Russian-speaking east, to come back into the running for the January vote.Biden is also set to meet with Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the reformist former parliament speaker, who plans to run for president.Russia was watching Biden's visit to its former Soviet backyard with keen interest, suspicious that Washington is out to block any moves to bring Ukraine and Georgia back into Moscow's orbit.Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told a weekly news conference that Moscow is "not usurping or monopolizing anyone's rights," and that all nations are free to choose their partners.But in a warning to Washington, he added, "It's important that this be done transparently, without under-the-carpet games and not at the expense of others' interests."He also suggested the U.S. should keep Ukraine's traditional ties with Russia in mind, saying the regional context and "historical specifics" should be taken into account.The U.S. has repeatedly denied that it seeks to dictate who should rule in any democratic country.Biden on Wednesday visits Georgia, where the opposition is demanding President Mikhail Saakashvili resign over his handling of the war with Russia and what they say is his retreat from democracy.Saakashvili has vowed not to resign before the end of his term in 2013.The Russian army quickly crushed the Georgian army last August after Georgia attacked its own breakaway province of South Ossetia to try to bring it back under control.Thousands of Russian troops remain in South Ossetia and another separatist-held Georgian enclave, Abkhazia, and Russia has recognized both regions as independent nations.Washington said it did not support Georgia's attempt to retake South Ossetia by force.Saakashvili, who had committed thousands of troops for U.S.-led missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, pleaded for military support from Washington during the fighting, but the U.S. did not intervene.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Ukraine Military Says Sea Breeze-2009 Exercise Called Off
KIEV, Ukraine -- There will be no Sea Breeze naval exercises with NATO forces in Ukraine's Crimea this summer, a source in the Ukrainian Navy command said on Monday.
A military exercise with the participation of foreign troops requires parliamentary permission, but the Ukrainian parliament has refused to even consider the matter.The source said the U.S. military command had informed Ukraine last week that the Ukrainian-U.S. naval exercise would not take place this year.Sea Breeze-2009 was due to be conducted in July.Sea Breeze exercises have been held annually in the Crimea since 1997, and have been subject to occasionally violent anti-NATO protests in recent years.Last year's Sea Breeze drills saw protesters set up camps along the Black Sea coast, and reportedly attempt to prevent foreign warships, participating in the exercises, from leaving the port of Odessa.
A military exercise with the participation of foreign troops requires parliamentary permission, but the Ukrainian parliament has refused to even consider the matter.The source said the U.S. military command had informed Ukraine last week that the Ukrainian-U.S. naval exercise would not take place this year.Sea Breeze-2009 was due to be conducted in July.Sea Breeze exercises have been held annually in the Crimea since 1997, and have been subject to occasionally violent anti-NATO protests in recent years.Last year's Sea Breeze drills saw protesters set up camps along the Black Sea coast, and reportedly attempt to prevent foreign warships, participating in the exercises, from leaving the port of Odessa.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Ambassadors: Political Instability Prevents Ukraine From Joining NATO
KIEV, Ukraine -- Political instability in Ukraine is a major obstacle of the country on its way to joining NATO, according to the ambassadors of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to Ukraine
"I think that in the technical context, you are working quite effectively and successfully. It is difficult to make any criticisms here," Polish Ambassador to Ukraine Jacek Kluczkowski said, adding that the "major problem here is the absence of any stability in the state."He said that when Poland was joining the alliance, there was domestic understanding and unity between the political parties in this connection.He said he knew many representatives of the Regions Party who earlier supported Ukraine's integration with the alliance, however, serious changes have now occurred."Perhaps it is due to the lack of talk and dialogue between political parties," Kluczkowski said.Hungarian Ambassador to Ukraine Andras Barsony said that the alliance acts, first and foremost, as a military political organization."The issue concerns not only the position and activity of the Foreign Ministry or the Defense Ministry, but also domestic political work in the country. If the domestic political situation remains unstable, there will be no chance [for Ukraine to join NATO]," he said.He also said that NATO could not interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine, because it is a sovereign and independent state - it could only help the country on its way to stabilizing the domestic situation."We have no moral right to interfere with an independent state. We can only support it," the ambassador said."NATO enlargement means the enlargement of the stability zone," Czech Ambassador to Ukraine Jaroslav Basta said.He said that if a country wants to gain NATO membership, there should be political stability in this country.
"I think that in the technical context, you are working quite effectively and successfully. It is difficult to make any criticisms here," Polish Ambassador to Ukraine Jacek Kluczkowski said, adding that the "major problem here is the absence of any stability in the state."He said that when Poland was joining the alliance, there was domestic understanding and unity between the political parties in this connection.He said he knew many representatives of the Regions Party who earlier supported Ukraine's integration with the alliance, however, serious changes have now occurred."Perhaps it is due to the lack of talk and dialogue between political parties," Kluczkowski said.Hungarian Ambassador to Ukraine Andras Barsony said that the alliance acts, first and foremost, as a military political organization."The issue concerns not only the position and activity of the Foreign Ministry or the Defense Ministry, but also domestic political work in the country. If the domestic political situation remains unstable, there will be no chance [for Ukraine to join NATO]," he said.He also said that NATO could not interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine, because it is a sovereign and independent state - it could only help the country on its way to stabilizing the domestic situation."We have no moral right to interfere with an independent state. We can only support it," the ambassador said."NATO enlargement means the enlargement of the stability zone," Czech Ambassador to Ukraine Jaroslav Basta said.He said that if a country wants to gain NATO membership, there should be political stability in this country.
Saturday, 7 February 2009
Rebuilding NATO ties won’t be easy
In February 2007, then-President Vladimir Putin made a strongly-worded statement at the Munich Security Conference, where he outlined the basic problems existing between Russia and NATO at that time, and stated that in the modern world a unipolar security model is both unacceptable and impossible.
Has anything improved in Russia-NATO relationships since then? Nothing appears to have changed for the better. On the contrary, ties have worsened due to a number of miscalculations made by NATO leaders since the Munich conference two years ago.
Russia is now explicitly in favour of improving relations with NATO, especially after last month's inauguration of President Barack Obama - who has already beamed positive signals to Moscow with hints of action to follow. Yet the Kremlin is still pointing out that the process can take place only on a selective basis and in carefully calibrated stages.
While a potential resumption of dialogue might be implemented in areas where both sides share the same key interests - e.g. in combating terrorism and marine piracy, drug trafficking, preventing epidemics and the negative consequences of climate change - there are some areas where the Kremlin and NATO are still at loggerheads. Here, there are very few chances to find quick and reliable ways to avoid these problems or minimise their alarming impact.
The first outstanding issue is still the possibility to field a third U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence, or BMD, site in Eastern Europe and to link it with the respective NATO anti-missile system.
Obama's statement, that he would "make sure any missile defence, including the one proposed for Europe, has been proven to work and has our allies' support before we deploy it," has been welcomed by Moscow.
Yet Russian leaders claim that Washington has not yet started military and technical feasibility studies of the intended BMD facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. Moscow also asserts that the United States and NATO have not reconsidered their April 2007 decision that their BMD assets should be bolted onto each other.
Russia is concerned that the proposed U.S. missile facilities in Europe, complemented and enhanced by a multifaceted NATO anti-ballistic missile shield, could constitute a grave threat to its supreme national security interests.
Secondly, six NATO countries still hold tactical nuclear weapons on the European continent under the U.S. and NATO "dual command": the United States and Britain, plus four de jure non-nuclear weapon states - Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. This, by the way, is in violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There are plans to extend a service lifespan of these bombs or to replace them after 2015 or even earlier by new "Reliably Replaced Warheads". There is a possibility that such weapons can appear on the territory of new NATO members in the form of a free-fall nuclear bombs on board nuclear-capable aircraft that are able to use air bases in Poland and the Baltic States. It is especially alarming that NATO has not abrogated its policy of the first use of nuclear weapons against Russia and its allies.
For its part, Russia does not have tactical nuclear weapons outside its territory - all were withdrawn from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in the early ‘90s, with many of them destroyed under Mikhail Gorbachev's unilateral initiatives. Washington and NATO many times rejected Moscow's offer to scrap such "battlefield" weapons of mass destruction.
Thirdly, there are several unresolved issues related to the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty: unlike Russia, the NATO signatories have not ratified the accord. Moreover, in recent years the Western signatories have exceeded limits in all five weapons categories by 26 per cent to 45 per cent. Unbelievably, some ex-Soviet bloc countries are still listed in the Eastern group, even though they became full NATO members - several years ago. For many years the term "substantial conventional forces" within the CFE accord was not defined due to NATO resistance, and this has allowed its forces to build up without any limits.
Fourthly, there is a real possibility that NATO again can be involved in intrastate conflicts in the post-Soviet space. By supplying offensive arms to Georgia prior to its invasion in South Ossetia last August, a number of NATO countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, the United States, Turkey and some others) have created a dangerous precedent, when they offered substantial material and moral support to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to use excessive force mainly against South Ossetian civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Altogether, the 15 countries (many of whom are NATO members) that delivered modern weapons to Georgia worth $2.5 billion bear full responsibility for the conflict.
After the August war, NATO decided to rebuild Georgia's military capacity to a much greater extent than it had before - by doubling the value of its military aid.
Fifthly, NATO has not definitely closed the door to potential new members who acted as failed states in Eastern Europe. That, as Putin put it at NATO's Bucharest summit, constitutes "a direct threat" to Russia's security.
All these factors are taken very seriously by Russia. Can Russia accept the formula "business as usual" with NATO while they remain? No, surely, it can not. Until they vanish in the haze - for good.
Vladimir Kozin is a Moscow-based political analyst.
l these factors are taken very seriously by Russia. Can Russia accept the formula "business as usual"
Has anything improved in Russia-NATO relationships since then? Nothing appears to have changed for the better. On the contrary, ties have worsened due to a number of miscalculations made by NATO leaders since the Munich conference two years ago.
Russia is now explicitly in favour of improving relations with NATO, especially after last month's inauguration of President Barack Obama - who has already beamed positive signals to Moscow with hints of action to follow. Yet the Kremlin is still pointing out that the process can take place only on a selective basis and in carefully calibrated stages.
While a potential resumption of dialogue might be implemented in areas where both sides share the same key interests - e.g. in combating terrorism and marine piracy, drug trafficking, preventing epidemics and the negative consequences of climate change - there are some areas where the Kremlin and NATO are still at loggerheads. Here, there are very few chances to find quick and reliable ways to avoid these problems or minimise their alarming impact.
The first outstanding issue is still the possibility to field a third U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence, or BMD, site in Eastern Europe and to link it with the respective NATO anti-missile system.
Obama's statement, that he would "make sure any missile defence, including the one proposed for Europe, has been proven to work and has our allies' support before we deploy it," has been welcomed by Moscow.
Yet Russian leaders claim that Washington has not yet started military and technical feasibility studies of the intended BMD facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. Moscow also asserts that the United States and NATO have not reconsidered their April 2007 decision that their BMD assets should be bolted onto each other.
Russia is concerned that the proposed U.S. missile facilities in Europe, complemented and enhanced by a multifaceted NATO anti-ballistic missile shield, could constitute a grave threat to its supreme national security interests.
Secondly, six NATO countries still hold tactical nuclear weapons on the European continent under the U.S. and NATO "dual command": the United States and Britain, plus four de jure non-nuclear weapon states - Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. This, by the way, is in violation of Articles 1 and 2 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
There are plans to extend a service lifespan of these bombs or to replace them after 2015 or even earlier by new "Reliably Replaced Warheads". There is a possibility that such weapons can appear on the territory of new NATO members in the form of a free-fall nuclear bombs on board nuclear-capable aircraft that are able to use air bases in Poland and the Baltic States. It is especially alarming that NATO has not abrogated its policy of the first use of nuclear weapons against Russia and its allies.
For its part, Russia does not have tactical nuclear weapons outside its territory - all were withdrawn from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine in the early ‘90s, with many of them destroyed under Mikhail Gorbachev's unilateral initiatives. Washington and NATO many times rejected Moscow's offer to scrap such "battlefield" weapons of mass destruction.
Thirdly, there are several unresolved issues related to the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty: unlike Russia, the NATO signatories have not ratified the accord. Moreover, in recent years the Western signatories have exceeded limits in all five weapons categories by 26 per cent to 45 per cent. Unbelievably, some ex-Soviet bloc countries are still listed in the Eastern group, even though they became full NATO members - several years ago. For many years the term "substantial conventional forces" within the CFE accord was not defined due to NATO resistance, and this has allowed its forces to build up without any limits.
Fourthly, there is a real possibility that NATO again can be involved in intrastate conflicts in the post-Soviet space. By supplying offensive arms to Georgia prior to its invasion in South Ossetia last August, a number of NATO countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, the United States, Turkey and some others) have created a dangerous precedent, when they offered substantial material and moral support to Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to use excessive force mainly against South Ossetian civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Altogether, the 15 countries (many of whom are NATO members) that delivered modern weapons to Georgia worth $2.5 billion bear full responsibility for the conflict.
After the August war, NATO decided to rebuild Georgia's military capacity to a much greater extent than it had before - by doubling the value of its military aid.
Fifthly, NATO has not definitely closed the door to potential new members who acted as failed states in Eastern Europe. That, as Putin put it at NATO's Bucharest summit, constitutes "a direct threat" to Russia's security.
All these factors are taken very seriously by Russia. Can Russia accept the formula "business as usual" with NATO while they remain? No, surely, it can not. Until they vanish in the haze - for good.
Vladimir Kozin is a Moscow-based political analyst.
l these factors are taken very seriously by Russia. Can Russia accept the formula "business as usual"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)