&host=rt.com&uri=/politics/russia-nato-council-military/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
Back on track: Russia and NATO resume military ties
Published: 26 January, 2010, 21:14
Edited: 17 March, 2010, 21:36
TAGS: Meeting, Military, NATO, Russia, Afghanistan
Russia’s and NATO’s military chiefs have met for the first time since the conflict in South Ossetia. The situation in Afghanistan as well as anti-missile defense plans were among the main topics discussed in Brussels.
That’s according to the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency, citing unnamed diplomatic sources.
The sides reportedly agreed upon a military cooperation plan for the year 2010. It includes more than 30 areas of common interest, including anti-piracy, counter-terrorism and emergency efforts.
“The main issue discussed was the situation in Afghanistan,” commented Russia’s envoy to the alliance, Dmitry Rogozin. “Many NATO countries consider Russia to be a partner that could support the Afghan army. NATO realizes that it can leave Afghanistan only when there is a strong political leadership and security services that can control the situation. The Afghan army likes military equipment produced in Russia, that’s why Russian assistance is very much in need,” he said.
Rogozin hailed the progress:
“We can now say that military cooperation between Russia and NATO has been fully restored. It is the last step in ‘unfreezing’ our relations because having political dialogue with a military organization and not backing it by real deeds is unthinkable.”
The last such meeting was held in May 2008. Relations were frozen immediately after the events in South Ossetia in August that same year.
The decision to restore full-fledged cooperation was made in March 2009. Last month saw a real shift in relations with the first formal Russia-NATO Council meeting and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s visit to Moscow.
Mikhail Troitsky, a political analyst from the MacArthur Foundation thinktank, says the unfreezing of relations is important for both Russia and NATO, who clearly understand their mutual interdependence.
“NATO cannot provide for its own security without engaging Russia. While Russia has to come to terms with NATO as the world’s most powerful political and defense block,” Troitsky believes.
26.01.2010, 17:38
Mid-East Quartet may meet in Moscow in FebruaryAt a meeting in Sochi with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said there is no sign of a breakthrough in the deadlocked Middle East peace process. |
27.01.2010, 13:42
ROAR: Afghanistan “the basis” for rapprochement between Russia, NATORussia and NATO have begun practical fulfillment of the agreements to restore military ties in the framework of the joint council. |
As usual, Russia is the sucker. Her leaders seem to like being (I don't know if there is a similar say in english. Time en time again, the proof was given that whatever decide America should be the way to do; there is absolutely no SINCERITY involved...Sorry Future Russian Generations ! Your friend: Jean-Claude Meslin
USA and NATO are still and all the time aiming at to blockade, to surround and to isolate Russia militarily with the help of its own troops and NATO troops. We can see and feel that warlike US and NATO expansion policy here in Finland as a Russian neighbouring country. Finnish people is and has been strongly against NATO membership. Only about 20 % of Finns are in favour of NATO membership and about 80 % against. That situation has been very stable for years, but when Bush-Rumsfeldt administration started its NATO expansion policy to isolate and surround Russia, our conservative party which had no own and meaningful domestic foreign policy and experience began to work for USA in order to get Finland into NATO. However, the conservative party did not succeed in changing the attitudes of Finnish people despite a very aggressive NATO campaign in Finland. So, about a week ago the Finnish Social Democratic Party announced that during the next 4 years' ruling period it will not support and approve any attempt of joining Finland in NATO. Subsequently, that meant a concrete stop for the conservative party's NATO policy in domestic affairs, but the one who guessed that the conservative party, USA and NATO would give up in Finland, committed a big error. Yesterday the Secretary General of NATO, Mr. Rasmussen from Danmark declared that "if Finland will not join NATO, NATO will join Finland". According to him NATO will widen the partnership so that Finland and Sweden as militarily non aligned countries could become closer to NATO and as a part of NATO's military structure. Those words of Mr. Rasmussen must be understood as a intention to get Finland into NATO outside and in spite of the Finnish own democratic and parlamentary desision making. Of course he couldn't mention that by himself. He must have had support for that announcement from the conservative party and the consecutive foreign minister of Finland.
In a precedent comment I talked about sincerity which is the base of all human relations. Let us develop further that subject. We know than when talking to NATO, it is the same than talking to the US Pentagone. So, Be careful ! Recently two topics made me wonder. 1) Mr Peter Lavelle show called: Armed to the teeth. We could notice that 80% of all conventional armaments were made by white peoples' states (USA, Russia, G-B, France & Germany). If we add WMD (weapons of mass destruction) that percentage goes highier. Consequently white humans have always been mankind's troubles-makers. 2) A few days ago, there was a topic: BRIC by BRIC, even adding a S for South-Africa to join. In such an association, white Russians will be quiet minority (around 5%). Consequently: how sincere is Russia in that Union ? Is-it not nicer for Mr Lavrov to talk to Hillary Clinton and for Mr Medvedev to deal with friends from Wall-Street, with former US secretaries of state, or with the "uncle Tom" N-PiPO-Obama (who was just a well conceived plan to full the American people and the whole World) than to Chinese, Indian, Brazilian or South-African decisions-makers. That is the fundamental question to ask if we really want to believe in a new World's governance...Sincerely. Jean-Claude Meslin