Developments related to military and security matters in
Europe and Asia have been numerous this month and
condensed into less than a week of meetings, statements
and initiatives on issues ranging from missile shield
deployments to the unparalleled escalation of the
world's largest war and from a new security system for
Europe to a new Russian military doctrine.
A full generation after the end of the Cold War and
almost that long since the breakup of the Soviet Union,
the past week's events are evocative of another decade
and another century. Twenty or more years ago war in
Afghanistan and controversial missile placements in
Europe were current news in a bipolar world.
Twenty years afterward, with no Soviet Union, no Warsaw
Pact and a greatly diminished and truncated Russia, the
United States and NATO have militarized Europe to an
unprecedented degree - in fact subordinating almost the
entire continent under a Washington-dominated military
bloc - and have launched the most extensive combat
offensive in South Asia in what is already the longest
war in the world.
Of 44 nations in Europe and the Caucasus (excluding
microstates and the NATO pseudo-state of Kosovo), only
six - Belarus, Cyprus, Malta, Moldova, Russia and Serbia
- have escaped having their citizens conscripted by NATO
for deployment to the Afghan war front. That number will
soon shrink yet further.
Of those 44 countries, only two - Cyprus and Russia -
are not members of NATO or its Partnership for Peace
transitional program and Cyprus is under intense
pressure to join the second.
On February 4 and 5 all 28 NATO defense chiefs met for
two days of deliberations in Istanbul, Turkey which
concentrated on the war in Afghanistan, the bloc's
military deployment in Kosovo and accelerated plans for
expanding a world-wide interceptor missile system to
Eastern Europe and the Middle East. That gathering
followed by eight days a two-day meeting of the NATO
Military Committee in Brussels which included 63
military chiefs from NATO nations and 35 Troop
Contributing Nations, as the bloc designates them,
including the top military commanders of Israel and
Pakistan. That conference focused on the Afghan war and
NATO's new Strategic Concept to be officially formalized
at an Alliance summit later this year.
The commander of all 150,000 U.S. and NATO troops in
Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, attended both
two-day meetings. Pentagon chief Robert Gates presided
over the second and "Afghanistan and missile defense are
examples of the new priorities that Gates wants NATO to
focus on." [1]
As indicated by the number of Chiefs of Defense Staff in
attendance at the Brussels meetings - 63 - NATO's reach
has been extended far beyond Europe and North America
over the past decade. Troops serving under the bloc's
command in Afghanistan come from every inhabited
continent, the Middle East and Oceania: Australia has
the largest non-member contingent with over 1,500
soldiers, and other non-European nations like Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Colombia, Egypt, Georgia, New
Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the United Arab
Emirates have troops in Afghanistan or on the way there.
On the day the Istanbul NATO defense ministers meeting
began Romanian President Traian Basescu announced that
he had granted the Obama administration's request to
base U.S. interceptor missiles in his nation, following
by five weeks the news that U.S. Patriot anti-ballistic
missiles would be stationed in a part of Poland a half
hour drive from Russia's westernmost border.
The next day, February 5, which marked two months since
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the
U.S. and Russia regulating the reduction of nuclear
weapons and delivery systems expired, [2] the Russian Interfax news agency announced that "President Dmitry
Medvedev has endorsed Russia's military doctrine and
basic principles of its nuclear deterrence policy in the
period up to 2020...." [3]
The same source cited Security Council Deputy Secretary
and former Chief of the General Staff of the Armed
Forces Yury Baluyevsky commenting on the new doctrine:
"It is planned to develop the ground, sea, and aerial
components of the nuclear triad....Russia needs to
guarantee its consistent democratic development using
such a stability guarantor as nuclear weapons, as a form
of strategic deterrence....Russia reserves the right to
use nuclear weapons only if its very existence as a
state is endangered." [4]
Commentary in the Indian daily The Hindu specified that
"The doctrine details 11 external military threats to
Russia, seven of which are traced to the West. NATO´s
eastward expansion and its push for a global role are
identified as the number one threat to Russia."
The feature added: "The U.S. is the source of other top
threats listed in the doctrine even though the country
is never mentioned in the document. These include
attempts to destabilise countries and regions and
undermine strategic stability; military build-ups in
neighbouring states and seas; the creation and
deployment of strategic missile defences, as well as the
militarisation of outer space and deployment of
high-precision non-nuclear strategic systems."
Regarding the timing of the authorization of Russia's
new military strategy, the report connected it with
recent U.S. missile shield decisions and the START talks
between Washington and Moscow still dragging on.
"The new defence doctrine was signed into law and
published a day after Romania announced plans to deploy
U.S. interceptor missiles as part of a global missile
shield fiercely opposed by Russia. Earlier reports said
the Kremlin had been holding back the doctrine, prepared
last year, because it did not want to jeopardise talks
with the U.S. on a new nuclear arms pact that are still
going on." [5]
A similar observation was made in a report from China's
Xinhua News Agency:
"Analysts say the Romanian decision came at a crucial
moment when Washington and Moscow are about to sign a
successor document to the expired Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START-1). Therefore, the move may
upset the thawing Russia-U.S. relations and put their
bilateral ties to test." [6]
The new Russian Military Doctrine (in Russian at
http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/461) listed under
the heading of "Main external threats of war" the
following concerns, with the most pressing first:
- The goal of NATO to arrogate to itself the assumption
of global functions in violation of international law,
and to expand the military infrastructure of NATO
nations to Russia's borders including through expansion
of the bloc
- Attempts to destabilize the situation in individual
states and regions and the undermining of strategic
stability
- The deployment of military contingents of foreign
states (and blocs) on territories neighboring Russia and
its allies, as well as in adjacent waters
- The establishment and deployment of strategic missile defense systems that undermine global stability and
violate the balance of forces in the nuclear field, as
well as the militarization of outer space and the
deployment of strategic non-nuclear systems precision
weapons
- Territorial claims against Russia and its allies and
interference in their internal affairs
- The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,
missiles and missile technology, increasing the number
of states possessing nuclear weapons
- The violation by a state of international agreements,
and failure to ratify and implement previously signed
international treaties on arms limitation and reduction
- The use of military force in the territories of states
bordering Russia in violation of the UN Charter and
other norms of international law
- The escalation of armed conflicts on territories neighboring Russia and allied nations
At the 46th annual Munich Security Conference held on
February 6 and 7 NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh
Rasmussen said "I have to say that this new doctrine
does not reflect the real world," though any impartial
perusal of the above nine points it addresses would
confirm that it portrays the world exactly as it is.
Regrettably.
For example, after Romania's president revealed that
U.S. missiles would be deployed in the country, a
statement by the nation's Foreign Affairs Ministry said
"Romania was and continues to be a consistent promoter
in NATO of the project regarding the gradual-adaptive
development of the anti-missile defence system in
Europe....The decision to take part in the U.S. system
is in full agreement with what the NATO summits in
Bucharest in 2008 and in Strasbourg-Kehl in 2009 decided
in this respect." [7]
On the first day of the Munich Security Conference
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in his
address that "With the disintegration of the Soviet
Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization a real
opportunity emerged to make the OSCE [Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe] a full-fledged
organization providing equal security for all states of
the Euro-Atlantic area. However, this opportunity was
missed, because the choice was made in favor of the
policy of NATO expansion, which meant not only
preserving the lines that separated Europe during the
Cold War into zones with different levels of security,
but also moving those lines eastward. The role of the
OSCE was, in fact, reduced to servicing this policy by
means of supervision over humanitarian issues in the
post-Soviet space."
He continued with a review of the failure of post-Cold
War security measures in Europe:
"That the principle of indivisibility of security in the
OSCE does not work doesn’t take long to prove. Let’s
recall the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
in 1999, when a group of OSCE countries, bound by this
political declaration, committed aggression against
another OSCE country, which was also covered by this
principle.
"Everyone also remembers the tragedy of August 2008 in
Transcaucasia, where a member country of the OSCE which
is bound by various commitments in the sphere of nonuse
of force used this force, including against peacekeepers
of another member country of the OSCE, in violation not
only of the Helsinki Final Act, but also of the concrete
peacekeeping agreement devoted to the Georgian-South
Ossetian conflict, which excludes use of force."
[8]
He was followed the next day by NATO chief Rasmussen,
who not only failed to respond to the accusation that
peace and security in Europe were endangered by his
military organization's relentless drive toward Russia's
borders, but advocated NATO involvement beyond the
continent to encompass the world.
In claiming "that in an age of globalised insecurity,
our territorial defence must begin beyond our borders,"
Rasmussen urged "that NATO should become a forum for
consultation on worldwide security issues."
His address also included the demand to "take NATO’s
transformation to a new level - by connecting the
Alliance with the broader international system in
entirely new ways."
Russia cannot propose a common security system for
Europe, but NATO can dictate an international one.
Rasmussen boasted that the NATO-led International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan "will further
grow in strength this year, with more than 39,000 extra
troops," in the sanguinary killing field the West has
created in the long-suffering country.
Not only did he not express a single reservation about a
war that is now in its tenth calendar year and growing
deadlier by the day, but he celebrated it as a model for
the world: "Our Afghanistan experience...leads me to
[another] point: the need to turn NATO into a forum for
consultation on worldwide security issues....NATO is a
framework which has already proven to be uniquely able
to combine security consultation, military planning and
actual operations for more than just NATO members
themselves. Again, look at Afghanistan."
[9]
Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Duma's
International Affairs Committee, also spoke at the
Munich Security Conference and said "I believe the
problem of NATO today is that NATO develops in reverse
order - it tries to act globally more and more but
continues to think locally....As soon as NATO starts to
reach beyond its borders this is no longer just an
internal matter for NATO."
He also "accused the alliance of provoking the
Georgia-Russia conflict by promising Tbilisi eventual
membership...." [10]
Current Russian deputy prime minister and former defense
minister Sergei Ivanov spoke at Munich too and in regard
to the stalled START talks said "It is impossible to
talk seriously about the reduction of nuclear
capabilities when a nuclear power is working to deploy
protective systems against vehicles to deliver nuclear
warheads possessed by other countries," reminding
conference participants that "Russia unilaterally cut
its tactical nuclear arsenals by 75% in the early 1990s,
but the United States did respond with a similar move
and even failed to withdraw its weapons from Europe."
[11]
Two days after the Munich Security Conference the
secretary of the Security Council of Russia, Nikolai
Patrushev, reiterated Lavrov's and Kosachev's earlier
concerns, stating "We have grave doubts [that Russia
will be more secure due to NATO expansion.] NATO
represents a rather serious threat to us."
A major Russian news agency wrote that "Patrushev
criticized NATO for its continued enlargement efforts,
including its encouragement of Georgia's and Ukraine's
bids to join the alliance.
"He also blamed NATO for arming and preparing Georgia
for an attack on South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and said
NATO countries continued to supply Tbilisi with weaponry
despite Russia's protests." [12]
To substantiate those concerns, the 10th annual NATO
Week began in Ukraine on February 9 and at the same time
the government of Georgia "endorsed the Annual National
Program of cooperation with NATO [ANP] for 2010,"
[13] an initiative launched by NATO shortly after Georgia's
invasion of South Ossetia and war with Russia in August
of 2008.
War in the Balkans, war in South Asia, war in the
Caucasus. This is the model NATO calls for replicating
on a world scale. And as the bloc moves further eastward
it brings in his wake troops and military equipment, air
and naval bases, and missile shield installations.
On February 9 Chief of the General Staff of the Armed
Forces of Russia Nikolai Makarov warned "The development
and establishment of the (U.S.) missile shield is
directed against the Russian Federation."
[14]
He also said "that differences with the United States
over plans for a missile defense shield were holding up
a nuclear arms reduction treaty" between Washington and
Moscow, that "the differences had so far prevented the
signing of the arms treaty." [15]
In further reference to the START negotiations, he
stated "U.S. missile defense plans are a threat to
Russian national security and have slowed down progress
on a new arms control treaty with Washington."
In Makarov's own words, "The treaty on strategic
offensive weapons we are currently working on must take
into account the link between defensive and offensive
strategic weapons. This link is very close, they are
absolutely interdependent. It would be wrong not to take
the missile defense into account." [16]
Earlier in the week spokesman for the Russian Foreign
Ministry Andrei Nesterenko reiterated his nation's
demand that U.S. tactical nuclear arms should be removed
from Europe. He said that the "withdrawal of American
tactical weapons from Europe back to the United States
would be welcome. It should be accompanied by complete
and irreversible demolition of the entire
infrastructures supporting the deployment of such
weapons in Europe," and reaffirmed his nation's position
that "nuclear arms should be deployed only in the
territory of the states possessing such weapons."
[17]
Six days afterward, to add to Russia's foreboding and to
demonstrate Western recalcitrance on the issue, the
insufferable ex-NATO secretary general George Robertson
was quoted in the Turkish press acknowledging that the
U.S. has from 40 to 90 nuclear weapons at Turkey's
Incirlik Air Base. Lord Robertson made the statement in
the context of demanding U.S. warheads remain in
Germany. He is of course neither a German nor an
American but is a former NATO chieftain and as such
considers himself entitled to determine matters of this
grave nature.
Also on February 10 a top Polish presidential aide,
Wladyslaw Stasiak, was in Washington to discuss the
imminent deployment of American Patriot Advanced
Capability-3 theater anti-ballistic missiles. He met
with members of the U.S. National Security Council and
with "experts at the conservative-leaning Heritage
Foundation and the Center for International and
Strategic Studies."
Afterward he stated "We talked about the future of NATO
in the context of a new strategic concept, as well as
present day NATO, especially concerning Article 5 and
its practical implementation," referring to the
Alliance's military intervention provision.
[18]
On the same day a spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign
Ministry expressed concerns over U.S. missiles being
deployed in its fellow Black Sea nation Romania. "As a
neighboring country with Romania, we cannot let U.S.
plans for a missile shield deployment in close proximity
to our border go unnoticed, especially since some
elements are expected to be based in the Black Sea."
[19]
Vladimir Voronin, until last September president of
Moldova, which borders both Romania and Ukraine,
recently warned that U.S. missile deployments in and off
the coast of Romania "could turn neighboring Moldova
into a front-line area" and that "Romania's position on
the U.S. missile shield and also open support for it
from the Moldovan current leadership could have
disastrous consequences for security in the region."
[20]
In doing so he echoed Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry
Rogozin who two days before said "U.S. plans to base a
missile-defense system in eastern Europe are a pretext
to encroach on Russia’s borders" and "The U.S. is using
Iran’s actions to globalize its system of missile
defense.” [21]
Four days after his previous comments, Moldova's Voronin
said that "The US ABM deployment in Romania is bringing
Europe back to the 'Cold War'" and that he "doubts that
US ABMs are targeted against Iran’s threat only."
[22]
The Pentagon opened a missile radar base in Israel's
Negev Desert in 2008, manned by over 100 military
personnel, which has a range of 2,900 miles, almost
three times the distance between the Israeli and Iranian
capitals. The forward-based X-band radar at the Nevatim
Air Base can monitor all of eastern and much of southern
Russia.
The more the U.S. and its NATO allies thunder against
alleged Iranian threats, the tighter the Western
interceptor missile cordon is secured around Russia.
On February 10 the local press wrote that "the Czech
Republic is in discussions with the Obama administration
to host a command center for the United States' altered
missile defense plan." [23]
The following day the Chinese ambassador to Russia, Li
Hui, spoke with one of his host country's main news
agencies and "reiterated Beijing’s concerns that [U.S.
missile shield] plans might disturb the current
strategic balance and stability and escalate tensions"
and correctly characterizing the true scope of the
American interceptor missile project "said the creation
of a global missile defense undermined international
efforts to bring nuclear proliferation to a halt."
[24]
His warnings, like those of Russia's, went unheeded in
Washington and among its NATO allies. On February 12
Poland approved a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with
the United States for "100 US soldiers to be stationed
in Poland as part of the shield, which will include
Patriot missiles and SM-3s." [25] This may be the first
confirmation that American ship-based (and/or land-based
adaptations of) Standard Missile-3 longer-range
interceptors will be deployed along with Patriot
Advanced Capability-3 missiles near Russia's western
border.
Also on February 12 Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko
Borisov revealed that the U.S. will hold talks with his
government to station potential first strike-related
interceptor missile components in the Black Sea nation.
U.S. Ambassador James Warlick confirmed that preliminary
discussions have already occurred. The Bulgarian head of
state explained the rationale for his willingness to
take the risky move: "My opinion is that we have to show
solidarity. When you are a member of NATO, you have to
work for the collective security." [26]
Considering all of the above, that the Russian
government permitted former U.S. secretary of state
Madeleine Albright and her "Group of Experts"/"Wise Men"
coterie to promote NATO's new Strategic Concept at a
talk at the Moscow State Institute of Foreign Relations
on February 11 is a travesty, an abomination. The only
venue the nation's authorities should have accorded her
is a jail cell.
NATO is not the international security provider it now
attempts to pose as. It is not a partner to the United
Nations, which it has overshadowed and rendered
toothless and pathetic, or any other international or
regional organization. It is not the foundation for a
worldwide "alliance of democracies."
NATO is a lethal, lawless warfighting axis which
unilaterally reserves the right to repeat its armed
aggression in the Balkans and South Asia on a global
scale. It is an affront and a threat to humanity.
References
1) Bloomberg News, February 4, 2010
2) With Nuclear, Conventional Arms Pacts Stalled, U.S.
Moves Missiles And
Troops To Russian Border, Stop NATO, January 22, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/with-nuclear-conventional-arms-pacts-stalled-u-s-moves-missiles-and-troops-to-russian-border
3) Interfax, February 5, 2010
4) Ibid
5) Vladimir Radyuhin, New Russian doctrine sees NATO,
U.S. as main threat
The Hindu, February 7, 2010
6) Xinhua News Agency, February 8, 2010
7) Financiarul, February 6, 2010
8) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian
Federation, February 8, 2010
http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/49F4C4EB6473C1E5C32576C500311EB4
9) NATO in the 21st Century: Towards Global Connectivity
Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
at the Munich
Security Conference
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_61395.htm?selectedLocale=en
10) Reuters, February 7, 2010
11) Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 6, 2010
12) Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 9, 2010
13) Georgia Times, February 10, 2010
14) Reuters, February 9, 2010
15) Reuters, February 9, 2010
16) Associated Press, February 9, 2010
17) Itar-Tass, February 4, 2010
18) Polish Radio, February 10, 2010
19) RosBusinessConsulting, February 10, 2010
20) Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 7, 2010
21) Bloomberg News, February 5, 2010
22) Voice of Russia, February 11, 2010
23) Prague Post, February 10, 2010
24) Voice of Russia, February 11, 2010
25) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, February 12, 2010
26) Reuters, February 12, 2010
Stop NATO:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato
Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/
|
