Tuesday, February 14, 2012


Features

NATO Chief Looks For Afghan Help, Eases Tension In Moscow

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (right) meets with NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Moscow.
TEXT SIZE - +
By Kevin O'Flynn
MOSCOW -- NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen came to Moscow with a list of military equipment and assistance he hoped to procure from the Kremlin.

But the NATO chief spent much of his time in the Russian capital making conciliatory offers of his own -- as when he told a group of students today that the military alliance would never act aggressively against Russia.

"Let me make a very clear statement as secretary-general of NATO: NATO will never attack Russia. Never," Rasmussen said.

"And we don't think Russia will attack us either. We have stopped worrying about this, and Russia should stop worrying about us as well."

The fact that Rasmussen felt the need to spell out is one indication of the vast divide that remains between NATO and Russia.

Ties have been severely strained by NATO's post-Soviet expansion, and particularly its overtures toward Ukraine and Georgia, which infuriated Moscow and was seen as a partial motivation behind the five-day Russia-Georgia war in 2008.

But NATO and Russia have both expressed a wish to put old resentments aside. Rasmussen, in his first trip to Moscow since becoming NATO chief this summer, focused instead on the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan -- and what Russia could do to help.

"I think Afghanistan should be the centerpiece of cooperation in 2010," Rasmussen said. "And this is the reason why I have presented to the Russian leadership a concrete list of proposals as to how Russia could further its engagement in our operation in Afghanistan."

Helping In Afghanistan

The NATO chief repeatedly said on his trip that Russia and the military alliance face a common security threat from the Taliban in Afghanistan.

NATO has asked Russia to provide Kabul with helicopters, helicopter training and spare parts, as well as training support for the Afghan air force and for Afghan police.

Russia, which suffered devastating losses during the Soviet war in Afghanistan between 1979-89, has made clear it will contribute no troops to the U.S.-led campaign there. It has expressed willingness to cooperate in other ways, however, although until now few concrete agreements have been made.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered Russian officials to study Rasmussen's proposals. Technically, however, Rasmussen left Moscow empty-handed. At a news conference before his departure, the NATO chief attempted to put the talks in a positive light, saying his "intention was not to receive clear answers at this stage."

Russian analysts said, despite the lack of a firm deal, the talks alone were sign of rapprochement between Moscow and NATO.

Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor in chief of "Russia in Global Affairs," says a deal on Afghanistan seems likely.

"I think that serious, concrete discussions are taking place. Interests in some ways meet and some ways don't," Lukyanov says. "And that is the point of the dialogue -- an attempt to exchange what Russia wants and what the alliance wants."

Russian Concerns


However, suspicions of NATO remain high in Russia. In a comment piece before Rasmussen's arrival, Dmitry Rogozin, the publicity-loving Russian representative at NATO in Brussels, concluded in the final paragraph that tensions would ease -- but only after 20 paragraphs lambasting the organization.

Russia's Dmitry Rogozin concedes that relations with NATO are improving.
Ruslan Pukhov, a leading Russian defense analyst and the director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, says it would be a mistake for Russia to aid U.S.-led efforts in Afghanistan.

"Our helping the NATO countries in Afghanistan -- especially with our controversial past in Afghanistan -- would mean that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda would probably be less able to hit the United States and their allies in Europe," Pukhov says. "But they can easily hit Russia and Russian citizens in Central Asia."

And despite the alliance's evident desire for greater cooperation with Russia, NATO chief Rasmussen continues to rebuff Medvedev's grand plan for a new European security treaty, which the Russian president published last month as an alternative to "biased" structures like NATO.

Rasmussen said the plan would be properly discussed in a forum like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but has declined to bring it on board for NATO consideration.

"I don't see a need for new treaties or new legally binding documents because we do have a framework already," Rasmussen said.

"NATO and Russia agreed on what we called a Founding Act [on Mutual Relations, Cooperation, and Security] already in 1997. It contains a lot of very valuable principles for our cooperation and European security."

Still, Rasmussen said today that if NATO's Cold War aim was "to keep the Russians out," the alliance's goal is now "to keep everybody in."
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Sergey from: Chicago, Illinois, USA
December 17, 2009 19:00
""Let me make a very clear statement as secretary-general of NATO: NATO will never attack Russia. Never," Rasmussen said.
"And we don't think Russia will attack us either. We have stopped worrying about this, and Russia should stop worrying about us as well."

"The fact that Rasmussen felt the need to spell out is one indication of the vast divide that remains between NATO and Russia. "

Kevin O'Flynn conveniently "forgot" to mention that NATO attacked Serbia in 1999 not because Serbia attacked any NATO country, but because of Milosevic brutal crackdown on Kosovo Muslim Albanian insurgents. NATO's 1999 attack on Serbia was a clear violation of NATO's own original charter that required to respond only if any of the NATO members was threatened militarily.

This 1999 'humanitarian intervention' in Kosovo was done largely at behest of then US Pres. Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair--both ultra-liberals with no military experience who, I assume among other things, wanted to raise popularity of US and Britain in Islamic world.

While I am not defending the brutality of Milosevic regime, using NATO to intervene in a sovereign territory of foreign country because some NATO governments did not like the internal security policies of regime there raised suspicion among many in Russia that NATO might want to intervene in Russia too over Chechnya or other places. So for all the bad things we can say about Putin-Medvedev "power vertical", suspicion of NATO intentions is not unwarranted, so in this case, both NATO and Russia have work to do if they are to cooperate effectively in future over Afghanistan and the rising tide of Islamic extremism in general.

by: Mark O from: USA
December 17, 2009 22:20
Sergey,

Excellent point-- and since guerilla warfare (including those fought by NATO countries) is always brutal by its very nature-- the precedent seemed to be set for "humanitarian intervention" anywhere at Western whim. The world looks very different today, of course, which is why all concerned are hurrying to turn the page.

Mark O

by: Ray from: Lawrence, KS
December 18, 2009 03:06
I'll bet anyone a six-pack of beer, that 20 years from now the world will discover that the Kremlin leaders were helping the "bad guys" in Afghanistan. A long, slow and painful defeat of US forces in A-stan would warm the hearts of Putin and crew. What goes around, comes back around-sometimes biting you in the arse.

by: Kohlz from: 45km Offshore New England
December 18, 2009 05:41
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen is engaging in diplomatic advances and efforts for old-enemy normalization, in unprecedented policy shift. This should be saluted and welcomed greatly by all.

To say publicly (perhaps the first time on such a direct, official level) that NATO will never attack Russia and that it's time for both NATO and Moscow need to stop worrying about mutual attacks is truly beautiful to hear and a great step forward for security and 'linkage.'

All too often still, we hear rhetoric from very high Russian military office that NATO/US could attack and pose a direct threat, or that NATO ships could be sunk at will. Likewise, there has been some ugly rhetoric stated from very high US congressional elements (far right wings) only adding to inflaming tensions and not normalization.

Furthermore, any remaining fears from various central Euro states and former Soviet Republics, lingering from a sense of legit insecurity and uncertainty (pushing many into a natural Euro/NATO bloc associations for normal self-interests), need to be finally relaxed.

It is indeed time now, for all sides to announce this non-aggression and formal intent to press forward towards this rather brilliant '2020 goal' which Mr. Rasmussen has initiated for normalized cooperation and political linking... A sort of 'Yalta II' perhaps. For then, there should no doubt be more normal and natural reformation of physical security links.

Bravo, Mr. Secretary-General and Russian leadership for this genuine start (in my humble opinion).. It's now time finally to change perceptions and change the dialogue.

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

U.S. Hearing On Balochistan Raises Hackles, Awareness In Pakistan

Latest Comment (7 total)

Baluch Na Tavar: @Saleem, what are you talking about ?? Dividing Baluchistan in to four provinces. ... More

Gaza Hamas Leader Arrives In Iran

Latest Comment (2 total)

Ben: Masks are thrown off.After the "Arab spring" the so called "peaceful talks" are ... More

UN Rights Chief Scathing On Syria

Latest Comment (4 total)

Rick: Yes , but it is insignificant

a pier

some sheds

and nothing more More