Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Nato e Russia: matrimonio di convenienza

Tie' Amarlic, studia' un po'...
Ocio pero', e' roba della novosti....
Russia-NATO - marriage of convenience
11:19 | 24/ 11/ 2006
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military correspondent Viktor Litovkin) - A regular 
NATO summit will take place in Riga, the capital of Latvia, on November 
28-29. NATO-Russia Council (NRC) meetings, which have recently been held on 
a regular basis, will not be held this time.
Military delegations from Ukraine and Georgia, and even from Albania, 
Croatia and Macedonia, the countries that have applied for NATO membership, 
will not attend the summit. Moreover, contrary to earlier statements, the 
latter three countries will not even be invited to join the alliance. In 
order to understand why this summit is so different, let's first analyze 
Russia-NATO relations.
Relations between the two sides are not cloudless, although judging by the 
recent meeting between NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and 
Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin, everything seems to be 
going quite well. Putin even remarked, "Our cooperation is developing 
successfully... We are conducting a high-level political dialogue on a 
regular basis."
Indeed, Russian and NATO leaders meet at least once a year, and sometimes 
even more often. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov takes part in all 
NATO summits, and often makes speeches to his European and American 
colleagues. NATO has a permanent military liaison mission and an information 
office in Moscow. In May, the latter held the two-week-long "NATO-Russia 
Rally 2006: What Binds Us Together." Participants in the rally toured nine 
Russian cities from the Pacific to the Baltic Sea, explaining NATO's 
positions on different global problems, and taking part in debates with 
young people. The NATO Information Office conducts interesting events every 
month.
Moscow and Brussels are also developing military contacts. In addition to 
the Partnership for Peace program, Russia takes part in NATO's Active 
Endeavor operation in the Mediterranean.
They have a joint program for the rescue of submarines in distress, which 
carried out the rescue of the AS-28 mini-submarine crew last year. Several 
days ago, Russian and NATO experts took part in command-post exercises to 
simulate defending against a missile attack in Europe. They were conducted 
at a defense ministry institute, where top security clearance was a must 
until very recently. There are more examples of Russia-NATO cooperation, but 
it still does not amount to a true partnership with due consideration for 
the vital interests of both sides.
Relations between the two are a marriage of convenience, where husband and 
wife live together, often socialize with others as a couple, and show every 
sign of respect for each other. At the same time, they sleep in different 
rooms, and have separate household and personal expenses. Each side is 
primarily pursuing its own interests, and although the couple is formally 
married, they cannot be called a real family. Needless to say, every 
metaphor has its drawbacks.
Let's take a closer look at Russia-NATO contacts. Despite promises to Russia 
during the first and second stages of expansion, NATO is bringing its 
infrastructure increasingly closer to Russia's borders. Under the pretext of 
countering international terrorism, it is upgrading local military airfields 
and highways, building ammunition depots and radars directed at major 
Russian cities, and re-equipping the armies of its new members with Western 
hardware. NATO is supporting velvet revolutions in CIS countries, and 
brainwashing their new elites into propagating its own ideas.
Still worse, NATO stores American tactical weapons at its bases in Europe. 
According to different estimates, there are from 150 to 400 B61 free-fall 
aerial bombs. It would be ridiculous to assume that they are there to fight 
terrorists. Why are they deployed in Europe? I addressed this question to 
Guy B. Roberts, NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Weapons of 
Mass Destruction Policy. This is what he said:
"NATO's policy is to neither confirm nor deny any detailed numbers of 
nuclear weapons. Therefore I cannot comment on the numbers you cite. 
However, since the end of the cold war NATO has reduced their arsenal of 
nuclear weapons by more then 90% and we are in a continual process of 
examining our nuclear posture to ensure we maintain the lowest possible 
number of such weapons consistent with our joint security and nuclear 
deterrence posture. The stationing of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe 
constitutes a special form of burden-sharing fully endorsed by the Allies, 
enhances the consultation process, and supports the special transatlantic 
link between all NATO members."
This lack of certainty is typical of NATO's attitude toward Russia's 
concerns. One of these is the potential forward deployment of interceptor 
missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic - ostensibly to counter missiles 
from "rogue states," such as Iran and North Korea. None of them has missiles 
capable of reaching the U.S., and even if they acquire them, these missiles 
will not fly over Europe. Hence, American interceptor missiles will be 
targeted at Russian strategic missiles. Experts take that as a fact.
But what does all this have to do with talk about a "strategic partnership" 
that Moscow hears in Washington and Brussels? True, NATO top brass say that 
the plans for stationing interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech 
Republic are a matter of bilateral relations between the U.S. and these 
countries, and have nothing to do with NATO. But does solidarity between the 
allies exist at all? Where is the borderline between allied relations and 
responsibility for strategic and provocative actions by a NATO member? The 
Pentagon's actions affect all aspects of relations between Moscow and 
Brussels, as well as the NATO-Russia Council partnership. Is Brussels not 
worried about this?
Military-technical cooperation (MTC) is another urgent problem in Russia's 
relations with NATO. The alliance does not want to see Russian military 
hardware in its markets, not even air defense and ABM equipment, which could 
protect Europe against potential terrorist strikes from the air. NATO 
officials cite different technical parameters, a strange argument 
considering that the air defenses of Greece, a NATO member, are wholly based 
on Russian equipment - S-300PMU, Tor-M1, Osa-10, and Igla-S... It appears 
that different parameters do not matter in one case but become an 
insurmountable obstacle in another. This is clearly an attempt to prevent 
competition with American air defense and ABM systems. The Washington-backed 
Raytheon Company is pressing its Patriot PAC-3, which is inferior to the 
S-300PMU in many respects, on NATO countries.
Last but not least, Russia is very sensitive to Brussels' promise to accept 
Ukraine and Georgia. On the one hand, Moscow can do nothing to prevent them 
from joining NATO. On the other hand, as Sergei Ivanov said recently, if 
this happens, we will have to revise our relations with NATO, and take 
additional measures to protect our national interests. I think that Russia 
could withdraw from the treaty on medium- and short-range missiles and 
deploy its tactical Iskander-M missiles on NATO's borders. But NATO's 
interests will be prejudiced even more if we ban flights over our territory 
made by its aircraft delivering supplies to the troops in Afghanistan, or if 
NATO has to withdraw its bases from the Central Asian countries that are 
members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Washington 
has already lost its base in Uzbekistan after criticizing its government for 
suppressing the riots in Andijan.
It is difficult to say what Vladimir Putin discussed with Jaap de Hoop 
Scheffer at their recent meeting in the Kremlin. But shortly after it, 
Brussels declared that admitting new members is not a NATO priority, and 
that it will be suspended until 2008. This means that NATO is listening to 
some of Moscow's concerns. If this attitude prevails, there is a hope that 
NATO-Russia relations will develop into a true partnership, although in a 
sense they will still remain a marriage of convenience.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20061124/55944970.html
 

 
Gia' quelli della Novosti non sono mai stati scemi. Piuttosto sei tu che 
sei scemo.
La prima parte e'la pelle di pecora, la seconda il pugnale che c'e' 
sotto.
Il tutto in stile diplomatico
Chiaramente come tanti leggi solo la prima parte, e trascuri la seconda. 
L'inventario delle differenze rimane uguale a prima.
 Solo Mosca prova un poco a flettere i muscoli, finche' i soldi 
accumulati dagli idrocarburi glielo consentono.
Per il resto ti confermi nemico della liberta' dei paesi europei e 
self-hater. Non ti invidio. Ad augurarti di metterti sotto un autocrazia 
che assassina i suoi.
Am.


Sempre a offendere...
Eh, cosa vuoi, evidentemente il tuo livello culturale e' questo.
Transeat.
Comunque caro am., a me nun me ne po' frega' de meno di come va il mondo, 
guarda un po'.
:-)
Certo e' brutto vedere civili ammazzati da una parte o dall'altra, o solo da 
una parte, talvolta.
Ma non tifo per nessuno, per quanto saltuariamente mi indigni su qualche 
strage di bimbetti, o su qualche strage dei principi elementari del diritto.
La PI la seguo per orientare i miei investimenti, e quindi osservo, 
analizzo, traggo le mie conclusioni, e vado corto sul dollaro e lungo sul 
rublo e sul petrolio.
:-)
Peccato il rembimbi (o come si chiama) non sia libero di flottare, 
altrimenti sarei lunghissimo anche su quello.
Ho pero' una certa qual (misera) etica negli investimenti, altrimenti avrei 
gia' preso Hallyburton 5 anni fa (+1000% circa),  o prenderei adesso 
finmeccanica.

 finmeccanica.
Apprezzo. Tuttavia anche la PI e' solo un fattore degli investimenti: 
troppo volatile per non rischiare brutte sorprese. E di converso basare 
la propria politica estera su un petrolio a 80 puo' riservare brutte 
sorprese se poi scende a 60 o 40, e ci si e' basato sopra un programma 
di riarmo.
Peggio ancora se come Putin si incomincia a cambiare il prezzo degli 
idrocarburi con la forza o a trafficare con i rubinetti, mettendo intere 
nazioni in ginocchio.
IMHO, anche un governo, checche' se ne dica, dovrebbe avere un quadro di 
riferimento etico, cioe' un etica in economia, cosi' come dovrebbe 
osservare convenzioni in guerra.
Quanto agli investimenti meglio farli in paesi o settori dove i guadagni 
di produttivita' sono reali, piuttosto che speculare sul tanto peggio 
tanto meglio (anche se Soros lo ha fatto).
Am.