Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO - Russia relations:

    Share

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:09 am

    Russia hopes Rasmussen is 'predictable' - Moscow's NATO envoy
    RIA Novosti

    18:52 03/08/2009 BRUSSELS, August 3 (RIA Novosti) - Russia hopes NATO's new secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, will be predictable, Russia's envoy to the military alliance said Monday.

    "We hope to see a predictable partner in the new NATO secretary general and the organization he heads," Dmitry Rogozin told RIA Novosti.

    Asked when Rasmussen will visit Moscow, Rogozin said the secretary general intended to visit as soon as possible. "In diplomatic terms this means by yearend," he said, adding that Russia expected specific agreements to be signed during the visit.

    At his first news conference as NATO chief, the former Danish prime minister said he hoped for a "true strategic partnership" with Russia.

    Rasmussen also said he would like to "convince the Russian people and the Russian political leadership that NATO is really not an enemy of Russia" and that it is "not directed against Russia."

    He added that last August's war with Georgia had negatively affected Russia-NATO relations and called on Russia to implement its international commitments regarding its neighbors' sovereignty.

    Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and another former Georgian republic, Abkhazia, after Russia and Georgia fought a five-day war last August. Most residents of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia have held Russian citizenship for several years.

    Georgian forces had attacked South Ossetia in an attempt to bring it back under central control. Since recognition of the two republics, Russia and Georgia have had no diplomatic ties.

    Rasmussen also called for active practical cooperation with Russia on Afghanistan, international terrorism, piracy and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

     

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/08/mil-090803-rianovosti05.htm

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Gov't Yet to Decide on Ulyanovsk NATO Transit Base - Lavrov

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:35 pm

    The Russian Communist Party has demanded that two referendums, an all-Russian and a regional one, be held over the projected deployment of a NATO transit base in the Volga city of Ulyanovsk, the party’s press service said on Friday.

    Presently, Moscow is in talks with the United States on an unprecedented transport agreement, under which non-lethal cargos from Afghanistan would be flown to an airport in the city of Ulyanovsk in the Volga region, and then transferred to Europe by train.

    Moscow says the offer would ease the strain on the alliance’s supply chain to forces in Afghanistan.

    The agreement on the NATO Afghan cargo transit hub is not coming into force yet, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday. “This draft agreement… has not come into force yet, it has not yet been considered by the government,” Lavrov told State Duma members.

    “We demand that a referendum “Do you approve of the deployment of a NATO base in the city of Ulyanovsk?” be held among the residents of the Ulyanovsk Region before the final decision is taken,” the communists said in a statement issued on their website.

    An all-Russian referendum should “answer a question on how to preserve Russia’s sovereignty, integrity and independence,” the party said.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120316/172212823.html

    Gov't Yet to Decide on Ulyanovsk NATO Transit Base - Lavrov


    The Russian government has not yet considered whether it will fulfil an agreement to set up a logistics transit hub in the Russian Volga city of Ulyanovsk for NATO operations in Afghanistan, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday.

    “This draft agreement… has not entered force yet, it has not yet been considered by the government,” Lavrov told State Duma members.

    Lavrov was commenting on media reports last month quoting Defense Ministry sources as saying that Moscow was in talks with NATO on a new transit agreement under which non-lethal cargos from Afghanistan would be flown to Ulyanovsk, and then transferred to Europe by train.

    “We are interested in having those who counter issues facing Russia inside Afghanistan do their job efficiently,” Lavrov said.

    Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin wrote in his blog on Tuesday that it would be a commercial transit. He also said the transit cargos would consist of necessary everyday items and would be transmitted to Afghanistan and not from the Central Asian country.

    “In Ulyanovsk, mineral water, napkins, tents and other non-military cargos will be reloaded from trains onto planes and then moved to Afghanistan,” he wrote. “The Russian budget will get money from it."

    Russia has provided its territory for NATO’s Afghanistan-bound cargos since 2009. Last year, Moscow also agreed to allow the cargos to cross Russia’s territory in the opposite direction as the alliance is preparing to pull out its troops from Afghanistan.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/world/20120314/172153793.html


    Rogozin Responds to Fears of 'NATO Base’ in Russia

    Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin dismissed on Tuesday concerns voiced by Russian internet users over the creation of a transit hub for NATO’s Afghan cargo in the Russian Volga city of Ulyanovsk.

    “Reading about a ‘U.S. base near Ulyanovsk’ is annoying,” Rogozin wrote in a post on his Facebook page on Tuesday. “Let me explain: we are talking about a so-called multimodal transit of non-lethal cargos to serve the needs of international security assistance forces in Afghanistan.”

    In early February, Russian daily Kommersant quoted Defense Ministry sources as saying that Moscow was in talks with NATO on a new transit agreement under which non-lethal cargos from Afghanistan would be flown to Ulyanovsk, and then transferred to Europe by train.

    According to Rogozin, “in Ulyanovsk, mineral water, napkins, tents and other non-military cargos will be reloaded from trains onto planes and then moved to Afghanistan.”

    “This will be a commercial transit, which means the Russian budget will get money from it,” he wrote. “I don’t think that the transit of NATO toilet paper through Russia can be considered the betrayal of the Fatherland.”

    While local authorities have hailed the new agreement, saying that it would create new jobs and help modernize Ulyanovsk Airport, Russian internet users have expressed concerns over what they called the authorities’ plans to set up a NATO “military base in the middle of the country.”

    On Monday, the head of the Defense Committee in the Russian parliament’s lower house, Vladimir Komoyedov, said the State Duma had received an official letter from the Defense Ministry explaining that the Ulyanovsk transit hub will have nothing to do with a “military base.”

    Russian internet activists have also speculated that poor customs controls may lead to Afghan drugs being smuggled into the country together with NATO cargos.

    Rogozin, who had served as Russia’s envoy to NATO until December 2011, dismissed such concerns in his Facebook post, saying “Customs checks will be obligatory. Stop panicking.”

    Russia has provided its territory for NATO’s Afghanistan-bound cargos since 2009. Last year, Moscow also agreed to allow the cargos to cross Russia’s territory in the opposite direction as the alliance is preparing to pull out its troops from Afghanistan.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/world/20120313/172143260.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:34 pm

    I think they should do the democratic thing and have a referendum.

    I would think it would take a year to set up a base and get it operational... and they are talking about pulling out of Afghanistan in 2014 so I wonder how long they intend to use it?

    Hope it doesn't become Guantanimo bay holding cell number two... it is ironic that the US can hold people there without trial because it is outside US legal juristiction, yet ask Mr Bout or India about the reach of US laws...

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:53 pm

    NATO Base in Russia 'Pragmatic Decision' � Analysts

    RIA Novosti

    13:52 21/03/2012 Maria Kuchma, RIA Novosti - The Kremlin's intention to allow NATO to set up a hub for Afghan transit operations in the Volga region city of Ulyanovsk has triggered protests amid claims the deal would undermine Russia's national interests and security.

    Analysts contacted by RIA Novosti have dismissed those fears as Cold War-era rhetoric, describing the prospective deal as a “pragmatic" step that would benefit both the Western alliance and Russia.

    Under a plan announced last week by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Moscow is preparing to allow NATO to use an airport in Ulyanovsk, the birthplace of Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, to transit soldiers and military cargo to and from Afghanistan. The deal comes as NATO is preparing for a pullout that would end its costly war in Afghanistan, which has continued for more than a decade.

    Ironically, it is the government of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, well known for his deep-seated suspicion of the U.S.-led alliance, that has actually been making the case in favor of the deal.

    "We are helping the coalition... primarily out of our own national interest," Lavrov told Russian lawmakers last week, describing the deal as "a means to assist those who are eradicating the threats of terrorism and drug trafficking in Afghanistan."

    The Russian authorities insist that the so-called NATO "base" would be nothing more than a transit hub, where cargos from Afghanistan would be reloaded from planes onto trains and then moved to Europe.

    But Russia’s Communists - the country's second most powerful political party - seem unconvinced. On Tuesday, they issued a statement declaring the deal a “threat” to Russia’s “national security.”

    “The Communist Party decisively condemns the intention to ensure a permanent foreign military presence in the heart of Russia and demands that the Russian leadership stop the implementation of this idea,” the statement reads, adding: “For the first time in the history of the Russian Empire, the U.S.S.R. and the Russian Federation, a foreign military base would appear on our soil… a base of a military bloc that the majority of our population view as hostile.”

    'Common interests'

    “Hysteria” surrounding the deal is no surprise given the anti-Western public campaign carried out by the Kremlin, Alexander Khramchikhin, chief analyst at the Moscow-based Institute of Political and Military Analysis, said.

    “The Kremlin is now facing the consequences of its own propaganda intended exclusively for domestic consumption,” the analyst said.

    In practice, the Russian leadership “realizes that the NATO operation in Afghanistan is in Russia’s interests even more than it is in the interests of NATO itself” because “Afghanistan threatens Russia – not to mention the Central Asian republics – much more than it threatens NATO countries,” Khramchikhin said.

    Every year, dozens of tons of Afghan heroin flow into Russia from Afghanistan via the former Soviet Central Asian states, killing an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 Russians annually. Opium poppy production remains a major source of revenues for the Taliban, whom the United States and its NATO allies have been fighting in Afghanistan since 2001.

    Despite disagreements between Russia and NATO on how to deal with Afghan drug production, Russia has supported the international operation there from the very beginning, Alexei Arbatov from the Moscow Carnegie Center said.

    “That we cooperate with the Americans on this issue is absolutely right,” he said, adding that this was the case when “absolutely different countries, which are unhappy with each other on many issues, cooperate effectively in their common interests.”

    ‘The Cold War is over’

    Russia has allowed Afghan-bound NATO transport through its territory since 2009 as an alternative to transit routes through Pakistan where NATO convoys have frequently come under militant attacks.

    But now that Washington’s relations with Pakistan have been strained and that Kyrgyzstan has signaled that it will not extend the U.S. lease of its Manas air base, Russia’s cooperation has become increasingly important for the United States and its NATO allies, analysts say. The creation of a new transit hub in Ulyanovsk is designed to ensure that NATO meets the 2014 deadline for pulling out of Afghanistan, they say.

    Lavrov said last week Russia was “not happy with the artificial deadlines” set for the Afghanistan troop pullout. First, he said, “it is necessary to achieve a basic level of order maintained by Afghan security forces.”

    Arbatov said he believed it would be better for Russia if international troops stayed in Afghanistan. But since they decided to withdraw, Moscow has no other option but to ensure that they don’t face difficulties on their way home, he said.

    Besides the geopolitical payback, Russia would also gain commercial benefits from the new transit deal, analysts and officials say. The first deputy head of the State Duma defense committee, Sergei Zhigarev, has said the Ulyanovsk hub may bring the Russian budget “tens of millions of dollars.”

    “There is no reason to talk about any threat to national security, about the invasion of the Urals and so on,” political analyst Sergei Oznobishchev, who heads the Moscow-based Institute of Strategic Assessments, said. “The Cold War has long been over.”

    During his successful presidential campaign, Vladimir Putin accused the United States of backing the unprecedented protests against his rule, causing analysts to speculate that his return to the Kremlin in May could signal the end of the much-triumphed “reset” in bilateral ties. However, once he won the presidential race on March 4, his loud rhetoric “vanished into thin air,” while “objective interests” of both Russia and the United States remain in place, Oznobishchev said.

    Commenting on U.S. President Barack Obama’s phone conversation with Putin a few days after the elections, Putin aide Yuri Ushakov said the two leaders agreed that that criticism of each other made in the heat of election campaigns should not be allowed to become an obstacle to bilateral relations.

    “Putin said openly: let’s turn over a new leaf,” Oznobishchev said. “As a forward-looking person, he understands the benefits of cooperation with the United States on Afghanistan, that’s why he takes such steps.”

    Moreover, the analyst said, Russia is “lucky” that NATO and the United States “decided to intervene in Afghanistan” – otherwise, Moscow would have to “take serious steps” to protect its southern borders.

    In the face of mounting protests over the deal, Lavrov told State Duma deputies last week that the government has not yet given the green light to the Ulyanovsk hub deal and that it was still under consideration.

    Oznobishchev said he believed the agreement would eventually be approved, despite the current vocal Communist opposition.

    "That's the good thing about a managed democracy," he said.

    Drug dealers 'don't need NATO's help'

    Opponents of the prospective transit hub have expressed fears that drugs may be smuggled into Russia together with NATO cargos. On Monday, about 80 Ulyanovsk residents staged a demonstration in protest against the government plan, saying in a statement that they were “deeply shocked” at the authorities’ actions and they would “open a drug-trafficking route into our country.”

    Arbatov said those fears were not baseless.

    “It’s no secret that both our soldiers who served in Afghanistan and troops who are currently serving there were sometimes involved in illegal drug trafficking,” he said.

    However, if NATO military planes do bring drugs to Ulyanovsk, it’s just a matter of proper controls to guarantee that they are not moved beyond the airport territory, he said.

    The Ulyanovsk hub should be “isolated from the rest of Russia,” and NATO is just as interested in preventing any leaks of its cargos, which may contain sensitive military technology, the analyst said.

    Russian specialists may also be involved in checking Ulyanovsk-bound cargoes before they are loaded onto planes in Afghanistan, Oznobishchev suggested.

    Meanwhile, other analysts said it was unlikely that drug traffickers would seek to infiltrate the Ulyanovsk hub.

    “Unfortunately, the drug mafia has enough transit routes throughout our country, and it does not need to seek assistance from NATO,” retired Major General Vagif Guseinov, who heads the Moscow-based Institute of Strategic Studies and Analysis, said.

    ‘Stabilizing element’

    Oznobishchev said the Ulyuanovsk hub deal underlines what he called a “contradiction” between the Kremlin’s military doctrine, which views NATO as the top threat for Russia, and reality, in which Moscow and the alliance have “more common interests” than “disagreements.”

    NATO’s plans to build elements of its European missile shield close to Russia’s western borders remain a major sticking point in its relations with Russia. Arbatov warned, however, that any attempt by Russia to use the Ulyanovsk hub as a tool to blackmail the United States over its missile shield plans could have unpleasant implications for both countries.

    “If we say: 'We will shut down the base if you don’t provide written guarantees that your missile shield is not directed against Russia' – this would simply lead to a conflict of interests and come to no good for both us and them,” he said. “They would never make such concessions – just as we wouldn’t make them if we were in their shoes.”

    At the same time, if sealed and honored, the deal may become an “important stabilizing element” in Russia’s relations with the United States and its NATO allies, Oznobishchev said.

    “Whatever arguments we will have, we will know that we all share common interests and we can’t just tear strips off each other and drift apart,” he said.


    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/03/mil-120321-rianovosti01.htm

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:53 am

    Before they sign anything they need concrete guarantees that the US will actually start an anti drug program and will dedicate significant resources to dealing with the poppy fields. So far they have paid lip service to tackling the problem of drugs because it does not directly effect the US. This has to change.

    And of course the whole set up is ended at the end of 2014 when US forces will leave the region.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1523
    Points : 1686
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  TheArmenian on Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:46 am

    One part of me tells me that hosting a US transit base in Ulyanovsk is the wrong thing to do.
    The other part tells me that it will make the US military dependent of Russia...sort of having Obama's balls in Putin's hands Laughing

    Mr.Kalishnikov47
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 298
    Points : 341
    Join date : 2012-02-25
    Age : 28
    Location : U.S.A

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Mr.Kalishnikov47 on Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:25 pm

    U.S cooperating with Russia, and vice versa? Blasphemy! I call foul play!

    TheArmenian wrote:One part of me tells me that hosting a US transit base in Ulyanovsk is the wrong thing to do.
    The other part tells me that it will make the US military dependent of Russia...sort of having Obama's balls in Putin's hands Laughing

    THE BALLS OF AMERICA SHALL REMAIN UNTARNISHED!! angry

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:45 pm

    The projected Ulyanovsk transit base for NATO supplies to and from Afghanistan will remain under Russian customs control and will have no NATO civil or military personnel, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.

    The U.S. wants to set up a transit supply base for NATO in order to facilitate the withdrawal of NATO forces from the international ISAF contingent in Afghanistan in 2013-14.

    "It will take place under full customs control of the Russian Federation," Lavrov said. "No military or civil personnel from NATO will be there, only Russian customs and Russian companies working in it," he said at a press conference during his visit to Kyrgyzstan.

    Russian forces may also check all freight transiting through the country for drugs, as Russia has been hit hard by heroin production in Central Asia, Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko said.

    President Medvedev has called Afghan drugs a threat to Russia's security.

    "Russia pays especial attention to security measures, so we have an agreement with NATO that all transit goods travelling through our territory may be subject to additional checks, including for drugs," Grushko told RIA Novosti.

    There are about five million drugs users in Russia, the country's drugs control chief Viktor Ivanov said in Decemeber.

    Russia allows NATO to transport non-military supplies for its operation in Afghanistan by rail and by air.

    Grushko said Russia had no current plans to allow the United States and other NATO member states to use a Russian air base in the Volga city of Ulyanovsk as a hub for transits to and from Afghanistan.

    "There will be no hub in Ulyanovsk. We are talking about temporary depots needed for the storage and subsequent loading of aircraft with non-lethal goods for shipment to the International Security Assistance Force," Grushko said, adding that the shipments were "strictly commercial."

    Last month, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the bloc had "no intention of establishing a base in Russia."

    "This is a pragmatic arrangement which allows us to transport non-lethal supplies and troops to benefit our operation in Afghanistan," he said in a video link-up with RIA Novosti.

    The decision provoked protests in Ulyanovsk, the birthplace of Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin.

    http://www.en.ria.ru/world/20120405/172625677.html

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:20 am

    Well if there are no NATO personnel, and it is not for weapons, then it really isn't a NATO base, it sounds like a place where you airlift stuff to be transferred to train... and the stuff we are talking about is stuff they were already transporting anyway.

    Sounds to me like they are helping an unwanted squatter to move their stuff out... so what is not to like?

    They have the right to search for drugs, so there is no real problem there.

    Still they are doing the US a favour so they should include a requirement for a favour in return...

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Nato powerless to stop a Russian invasion ...

    Post  nemrod on Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:37 pm

    At first, I won't respond to the stupid politic assertions made by Gen Shirref about the so-called Russia's threat. Every one among us are well aware, how is the catastrophic economic situation in UK and in USA. The only purpose is to drive other countries to be freighten by Russia, and China at first, and for US, and UK to not give back the money they must to the BRICS. As, China,  India, Brasil are already emerged as power countries -excluding Russia because 20 years ago Russia  inside Soviet Union was  the powerfull country, as Russia was during nearly these last 1000 years. Russia was a strong superpower, she is always nowadays, it is not new -. The purpose is to push for another war ? Can US afford it ? Oviously no, however it is the ultimate attempt in order to save whatever they could before the inescapable collapse of US economy.

    Secundly, Russia does not need to invade Ukraine -if so, they invaded for a long time ago-, and has never expressed the will to do it. Because Russia knows very well that its best assets are the actual ukrainian leaders, as they are driving Ukraine in the gloomy chaos.

    General Sir Richard Shirreff said :

    Nato needed to rearm to counter Russia.

    To rearm ? To rearm ? affraid  What does it mean ? And the F-22 ? And the B-2 ? And the thousands F-15, F-16, F-18 ? Where are the US submarin? Aircrafts carriers ? Military basis ? US nuclear assets ? Or all it is a bluff ? dunno

    In fact Gen Shirref acknowaledges simply that the so-called US superiority is real only against the poorly defended, small, isolated countries like Serbia, or Iraq. When US knew before the war started what were the secret of Iraqis air defence. In case of confrontation with Russia, and China, US knows very well that all their filthy hardware are merely useless, because they merely don't match. For that reason Nato is calling to rearm. Gen Shireff knows very well that this time the threats that are the very modern Mig-35, Su-35, or even the last Mig-21-93 won't be virtual. This time the aircrafts carriers as the bombers will be useless.

     





    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2735501/Nato-powerless-stop-Russian-invasion-Eastern-Europe-says-British-general.html


    Nato would be powerless to stop a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe, says top British general

    General Sir Richard Shirreff said Nato:
    - needed to rearm to counter Russia
    - Comes after Nato said it will deploy forces at new bases in eastern Europe
    - Move comes ahead of next week's Nato summit in Wales over Ukraine crisis

    By Tom Mctague, Mailonline Deputy Political Editor

    Published: 09:21 GMT, 27 August 2014 | Updated: 17:38 GMT, 27 August 2014

    Nato would not be able to stop a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe because of years of military cuts, one of Britain’s top generals has warned.

    General Sir Richard Shirreff, who stepped down from his post as Nato deputy supreme commander earlier this year, said the military alliance needed to rearm if it was serious about defending itself in the future.

    Asked about the crisis in Ukraine, he said: ‘The reality is that Nato would be very hard pressed and they would find it very difficult to put into the field, at sea or into the air the means required, particularly on land I would assess, to counter any form of Russian adventurism.’

    His remarks came after the Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen revealed that the organisation will deploy forces at new bases in eastern Europe for the first time, in response to the crisis in Ukraine.

    The move is an attempt to deter Russian President Vladimir Putin from causing trouble in the former Soviet Baltic republics, according to Mr Rasmussen.

    He said the organisations's summit in Wales next week would overcome divisions within the alliance and agree to new deployments on Russia's borders – a move certain to trigger a strong reaction from Moscow.

    He also outlined moves to boost Ukraine's security, ‘modernise’ its armed forces and help the country counter the threat from Russia.
    His former colleague General Shireff, speaking on BBC Newsnight last night, said Nato needed urgent investment.

    He said: ‘Certainly western Europe would not be able to defend in my view against Russia without significant support from the Americans.

    ‘Nato would find it really difficult to get a division (20,000 people) out of the door in quick time.

    ‘Because certainly in western Europe what we have seen progressively is a dismantling of military capability.’

    He accepted that advocating rearmament would be unpopular, but added: ‘It is a message our political leadership need to take home and listen to and act on if they are serious about ensuring that Nato has the means to defend itself in the future.

    ‘If Nato is serious about this, it is going to have to rearm, it is going to have to rebuild capability. European nations are going to have to put their hands in their pockets to spend more money on defence.’

    Currently just four out of the 28 members spend more than the minimum target of two per cent of GDP on defence.

    Asked about the situation in Iraq, Sir Richard stressed the threat posed by IS, formerly known as ISIS or ISIL, had to be eradicated.

    He told the programme: ‘The first priority is to protect but ultimately the priority must be to eradicate IS as an external threat because of the potential impact on the Middle East ... but also its potential impact if its incubus is allowed to survive ... on our external security. There is (also) a very clear issue as far as internal security is concerned.’

    When questioned about whether this meant siding with President Bashar Assad in Syria, he replied: ‘There can be no eradication of IS as a threat without a regional approach.

    ‘IS is operating and has spread into Syria and therefore there is likely to be or inevitably going to be a need to sit down and talk to difficult bed fellows, bad people.

    ‘It is one thing to say that we are going to deal with it, but you have to back up your words with actions and therefore in my view we should rule out nothing.

    ‘We must apply all the levers of power, political, diplomatic, economic and of course of military, but above all we need to establish the international political will to deal with this.’


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 29, 2014 1:13 pm

    NATO does need to rearm... let them spend an enormous amount of money on their military instead of propping up their economies... Twisted Evil

    Cut welfare benefits and healthcare and watch the 99% rise up... sounds like the plot to a new Zombie movie... except the humans are the rich and the Zombies are the rest...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:42 am

    Russian invasion agaisnt Eastern Europe ? Probably the US General have played Red Alert too much recently.

    We should be remined that both Russia and the US are countries with nuclear weapons... that's mean when a war broke out between NATO and Russia then all involved countries will be erased out of the world map.

    Don't know why the warmongers in US always blabber about something could never happened.

    Now it's time that the US should define power and strength as PEACE. (copyright by Bill Maher)

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:24 pm

    Oh for the love of, ok, i am seriously asking this time, why would Russia invade Europe, what is there of worth in Europe, there are no noteworthy resources, territorial expansion is worthless considering Russia's size (except for Crimea of course), the Baltic States and other E.European states are just dead weight and attacking them (EU) would just hurt Russia's own economy (losing markets and wasting Russia's finances), if there is one thing i know about Russia is that they are very frugal with there money (side effect of the 90s), so there must be a damn good reason too invade Europe, but for the life of me i can't think of a single one?? Suspect Shocked

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  higurashihougi on Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:50 pm

    Well, there are already someone who want to turn Red Alert into reality.

    http://rt.com/news/183828-nato-rapid-deployment-force/

    https://picturesdotnews.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/nato-states-create-new-multilateral-force-british-led-unit-of-10000-formed-in-response-to-ukraine-crisis/

    The Financial Times article's title is "NATO states create new multilateral force", but I cannot access to that article (need to pay money ?)

    Yeah it looks like 10000 NATO troops will invade Ukraina in order to "prevent" Russia's so-called "threat" against the West.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:00 pm

    higurashihougi wrote:Well, there are already someone who want to turn Red Alert into reality.

    http://rt.com/news/183828-nato-rapid-deployment-force/

    https://picturesdotnews.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/nato-states-create-new-multilateral-force-british-led-unit-of-10000-formed-in-response-to-ukraine-crisis/

    The Financial Times article's title is "NATO states create new multilateral force", but I cannot access to that article (need to pay money ?)

    Yeah it looks like 10000 NATO troops will invade Ukraina in order to "prevent" Russia's so-called "threat" against the West.

    Gotta love those hypocrites! - It is almost certain that they have some sort of "special forces" in Ukraine, and Blackwater has been there since the beginning!

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:45 pm

    Mike E wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:Well, there are already someone who want to turn Red Alert into reality.

    http://rt.com/news/183828-nato-rapid-deployment-force/

    https://picturesdotnews.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/nato-states-create-new-multilateral-force-british-led-unit-of-10000-formed-in-response-to-ukraine-crisis/

    The Financial Times article's title is "NATO states create new multilateral force", but I cannot access to that article (need to pay money ?)

    Yeah it looks like 10000 NATO troops will invade Ukraina in order to "prevent" Russia's so-called "threat" against the West.

    Gotta love those hypocrites! - It is almost certain that they have some sort of "special forces" in Ukraine, and Blackwater has been there since the beginning!

    Of course they have special forces there. Already forgot the Blackops Snipers on Maidan?

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Mike E on Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:47 pm

    Of course not... I just don't want to sound like "oh, duh, they've been there the whole time!" kind of thing.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  nemrod on Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:33 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Mike E wrote:
    higurashihougi wrote:Well, there are already someone who want to turn Red Alert into reality.

    http://rt.com/news/183828-nato-rapid-deployment-force/

    https://picturesdotnews.wordpress.com/2014/08/30/nato-states-create-new-multilateral-force-british-led-unit-of-10000-formed-in-response-to-ukraine-crisis/

    The Financial Times article's title is "NATO states create new multilateral force", but I cannot access to that article (need to pay money ?)

    Yeah it looks like 10000 NATO troops will invade Ukraina in order to "prevent" Russia's so-called "threat" against the West.

    Gotta love those hypocrites! - It is almost certain that they have some sort of "special forces" in Ukraine, and Blackwater has been there since the beginning!

    Of course they have special forces there. Already forgot the Blackops Snipers on Maidan?

    God! Third world war is looming ?
    Should I suggest to Moscow to send its paratroops into -so-called states- the baltic countries -Lithuania, Estonia, Letonnia-? Should I be worry ?
    It is evident that since the beginning Nato, and especially US wants the war, however, they cannot afford it. Deploying 10.000 troops ? Ok, let's go, but this time, as I've seen in Iraq, and recently in Gaza, I have not the ounce of a doubt that the ukrainian -russians speaking- resistance will crush them. What's the reality ? In fact the Kiev's troops are in a complete root, this is the reason why in a last desperate attempt the Kiev's mafia gangsters leaders want to involve Nato, in order to save them. The problem is most of the Nato's countries public opinion are against war, and chieftly dying for the Nazi -Kiev leaders-. This is the reality, in spite of the best diabolic propaganda made by most of the Nato's medias. Who will they send to die in Ukraine ?

    But this time it is too late, Russia won't retreat as it did with Serbia. It is time now for the counteroffensive, undoubtly, now the new serbian's leaders are taking act about the changing situation, and they are mulling to retrieve the Kosovo, and the Bosnia , in order to expel mafia's UCK, and Nato basis. Putin is not Yeltsin.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Aug 31, 2014 5:42 am

    For the NATO oligarchs it is inadvisable to militarily intervene into the affairs at Ukraina. The reality is that Ukraina is a divided country with corrputed goverment, empty treasury, and a degenerated army who cannot do anything against the Donbass separatists. In short, Ukraina is a burden which no one want to take.

    Fitch already put Ukraina into the level of CCC. Goverment's foreign debt is about 65%, GDP decreased 6,5%. Curious to see when Kyiv will go bankrupt.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Aug 31, 2014 2:46 pm

    Russia's respond to the West 21st Crusade:

    http://www.eurasianet.org/node/69761

    “The peacekeeping forces of the CSTO were formed several years ago and has undergone military preparation," said the CSTO chief, Nikolay Bordyuzha, in an interview with RIA Novosti on Friday. "The military personnel in its ranks are well-prepared in individual relations and equipped with all the needed military and technical means. They are ready to participate in peacekeeping operations of any caliber, as was confirmed by the results of recent joint drills in the Republic of Kyrgyszstan."

    And he added that it would have to be a decision made jointly by the other CSTO members, which include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. “Deployment of the CSTO peacekeeping forces is within the jurisdiction of the Council for Collective Security of the Treaty, the supreme body of the CSTO consisting of the members’ heads of state. With their joint decision and in accordance with existing agreements, the peacekeeping forces can be deployed within and without the territory of member states."

    Bordyuzha's comments got a lot of press attention, and his press secretary followed up by saying that there were in fact no plans to get involved in Ukraine. "The question of whether to send CSTO peacekeepers to Ukraine was not brought up... We just carried out peacekeeping exercises. We worked out variants of conducting an operation in support of peace. The fact that we are ready does not mean that a peacekeeping mission will be carried out in Ukraine." He added that for the CSTO to deploy outside the territory of a CSTO member state -- for example Ukraine, which isn't a member -- would require a UN mandate, which seems improbable.

    Basically a clear warning to EU's 10000 Crusaders. Don't make fun of Russia.

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Mike E on Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:52 am

    How about this; never, make fun of Russia (or any other nuclear power).

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:50 pm

    NATO Determined to Restore Contacts with Russian Military Top Brass

    NATO intends to restore communication with its Russian counterparts, the military bloc's European Commander, US General Philip Breedlove said Thursday.

    BRUSSELS, January 22 (Sputnik) — The North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intends to restore communication with its Russian counterparts, the military bloc's European Commander, US General Philip Breedlove said Thursday.

    "Yes, we have talked an awful lot about how we re-establish comm and the fact that the communication with our senior military interlocutors in Russia is important," Gen. Breedlove said at a press conference following the Military Committee in Chiefs of Defense session.

    Contact between the Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov and NATO are traditionally maintained by Gen. Breedlove and the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Danish General Knud Bartels. The last communication took place on May 19, 2014, when the sides discussed the bloc's troop buildup on Russia's western borders and the situation in Ukraine.

    Lack of communication between NATO and Moscow has been repeatedly decried by top-level Russian officials as contributing to increased misunderstanding and suspicion between the sides.

    On Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated Moscow's readiness for equal dialogue and cooperation, adding that by severing all contact with Russia, NATO has chosen a "confrontational path."

    Since civil unrest broke out in Ukraine, NATO has accused Moscow of interfering in the country's internal affairs, including multiple allegations of the presence of Russian troops in the country. Russia has repeatedly denied these accusations.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  George1 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:25 am

    Restored NATO-Russia Communications Needed to Avoid ‘Miscalculations’

    Airbornewolf
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 338
    Points : 400
    Join date : 2014-02-05
    Location : netherlands

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Airbornewolf on Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:10 pm

    its what NATO wants now since their little gambit with Ukraine is going downhill fast. and no matter how many black-op NATO troops they send in, fact remains the war is effectively over as Ukraine's millitary has no combat-capable fighting force left. the rest is either dead, injured, defected or just plainly fled the country to avoid the conscription.

    all Kiev is doing now is sending pointless assaults and bombing towns and cities in east ukraine. they are doing nothing more than lose ground nowadays. and Kiev's attempt to get the EU to go at Russia's throat seems to be pretty dead in the water as well as Greece appears to never accept new russia sanctions and openly condemns the EU standpoint.

    if i where Russia i wouldnt deal too much with NATO as an whole, but rather approach individual EU country's with "soft Power". Hungary, Slovakia, and Greece alone are in general on Russia's side by now even if Brussels attempts to keep them "in Line" of NATO/Brussels. ...look at Greece, there is an saying in my country. "if one sheep has crossed the dam, more will follow". meaning that Greece's example of protesting the anti-russian behaviour of the EU will make it now easier for other EU countries to do the same. undermining NATO's unity.

    ....not that there was much "unity" against Russia left among EU NATO forces anyway, but i mentioned that enough times already here and there on the forum.

    NATO is in damage control mode, but its too little too late.




    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  George1 on Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:35 pm

    Stoltenberg Says NATO Against Confrontation With Russia

    Precondition for cooperation between Russia and NATO include respect for each other and national borders, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said.

    MUNICH (Sputnik) — NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Friday the alliance was not seeking confrontation with Russia and had no goal to isolate Moscow.

    "NATO does not seek confrontation with Russia," Stoltenberg said addressing the Munch Security Conference.

    "Our goal has been to involve Russia, not to isolate it," the NATO stressed, adding that Russia "isolated itself by own actions and own choices."

    On Thursday, the defense ministers of NATO member-states agreed on the creation of six new command and control posts in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania during a meeting in Brussels. The ministers also announced that NATO's Response Force would be doubled to include up to 30,000 people.

    Precondition for cooperation between Russia and NATO include respect for each other and national borders, Jens Stoltenberg said Friday.

    "The precondition for our cooperation is that we respect each other, and most fundamentally… respect borders," he said.

    He stressed that NATO provided support to Ukraine, including strong political backing and defense capabilities.

    Russia's envoy to the alliance Alexander Grushko said Friday that NATO's recent decision to set up additional command centers in six different countries would inevitably lead to "adequate" changes in Russia's military planning.

    NATO's growing presence in Eastern Europe has been the subject of geopolitical tensions, with Russia having expressed growing concern over the buildup of NATO forces along its western border.

    NATO, which has accused Russia of being involved in the Ukrainian crisis, claims that the expansion is aimed at protecting its member-states and allies.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150206/1017888995.html#ixzz3Qz1pOA37

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO - Russia relations:

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:41 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:41 pm