Posted on 12/07/2001 2:14:04 AM PST by lavaroise
Moscow says Europe should turn eastward for security help
By Toby Westerman
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Moscow believes the U.S. "cannot guarantee" the security of its allies in Europe and that Western Europe, therefore, should turn to Russia as a new alliance partner, according to official Russian sources.
European nations should "revise their position" regarding Russia and turn NATO into a "political structure," Moscow said.
"The Sept. 11 attacks on the United States proved that for all of its might and riches, the country cannot guarantee its own security, let alone that of its allies."
The solution is for Europe to turn to Russia, "which has become their much needed ally in the war against terrorism." Moscow demands a "long-term arrangement" from NATO with at least "a limited participation" in alliance deliberations to "resolve European security problems."
The statements were carried by the Voice of Russia World Service, the official broadcasting service of the Russian government.
Moscow's comments came shortly before today's scheduled meeting of NATO and Russian leaders at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.
NATO was founded in 1949 as a defensive alliance against the threat of invasion from an aggressive Soviet Union and remained effective against Soviet attack until the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
Moscow suggests that Western Europe "speed up the formation of a rapid reaction force," while declaring that "durable security is impossible" in Europe without Russian involvement in the continent's defense structures.
Apparently referring to the perceived need for Russian involvement in the full gamut of European security measures, Moscow declared that "neither the rapid reaction force nor any other moves that NATO might take towards consolidation would help if Russia drops out."
Moscow left unsaid how European security would be affected if Russia "drops out" of present continental security agreements.
Moscow advanced the proposition that if it gained "limited participation" in NATO, the alliance "could gradually transform from a military into a political structure."
Claiming wide support for close cooperation with Russia, Moscow proclaimed that "an ever greater number of people" in Europe "regard a union with Russia and long-term cooperation" as "desirable and necessary." This "union" and "cooperation" would be "free from the memories of the past."
Since the Soviet era, Moscow has sought a united Europe – and with no designated role for the U.S. In March 2001, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that "Moscow seeks creation of a single, united, legal and cultural … civilized space."
The united Europe, according to Moscow's view, would be "one of the poles of a new world in the making."
Economic cooperation between Western Europe and Russia is already substantial, with about 60 percent of foreign investment and 40 percent of Russia's foreign trade coming from nations of the European Union.
On Wednesday, Russian and European officials met in Moscow to discuss further joint cooperation. According to a report from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, EU Commissioner for Trade Pascal Lamy stated, "We recognize and welcome the considerable political and economic reforms which have been put in place by President Putin's government."
European dependence upon Russian oil and gas is growing following recent agreements guaranteeing supplies to Western Europe in partial exchange for investment in Russian oil and gas production.
As Western Europe and Russia grow closer together, Moscow is increasingly becoming a power center beyond the borders of the Russian Federation.
The Union of Russia and Stalinist Belarus appears ready to accept new members, with new inductees very probably coming from Central Asia as well as Eastern Europe.
The Soviet Union's successor, the 12-member Commonwealth of Independent States, is promising to become "an authoritative international organization," according to the Voice of Russia World Service.
The president of the oil-rich CIS member nation of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, declared that the CIS has "a common history, a common mentality and a common language that unifies us – I mean the Russian language."
Observers note that unfortunately CIS members have another common bond – most of them are ruled by iron-fisted dictators. One of the CIS leaders, President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, is regularly condemned by international human-rights organizations and has even been accused of political murder.
The Putin government has also come under severe criticism for extending control over the Russian media. In August 2001, Putin decreed that all Russian broadcasting and relay stations for television and radio were to be placed under the management of a single government corporation. This move gives Putin effective control over the content of Russia's mass media.
Observers also question Moscow's close cooperation – including military cooperation – with nations linked to terrorist activities and its ties to countries still advocating the communist cause, including China, Cuba and Belarus.
Related story:
1. Russia claims the US cannot protect Europe, which is a lie since freedom and security of freedom in Europe has always been protected by the US.
2. Russia conveniently does not want the past to be mentioned because Russia does not want the US to gain credit for freedom and security, but rather would want to gain credit for it despite ist past (present?) involvement in Soviet lead world nuclear terrorism.
3. Russia is using nothing less than nuclear blackmail and sheer military force influence to recreate its image and its past as some necessary evil for its greatness today.
4.Russia does not want to repent, does not want to repair, does not want peace, does not want to stop prosecuting and criticising the US, Russia does not even want to be forgiven or loved, Russia wants to be respected for its past crimes.
Folkes, we are in big trouble.
I say if Europe wants to flirt with Russia, I say let Europe go right ahead and shoot itself in the foot. As for America, keep and bear arms, nuclear arms that is.
To bad you probably believed everything I said in sarcasm...but then again, that's why few take you seriously.
Or is it Russia playing on the terrorophobia of the west, my whole point.
I have no idea who's wearing aluminum helmets- (aren't US/NATO ones Kevlar these days?) so I'm not sure but suspect that is to whom you are referring.
NATO kept the peace, albeit an uneasy one, for forty years. Give them credit for that.
I'm not crazy about what we did in the Balkans for any number of reasons.
I think it was political- Clinton and Blair did it for the purpose of misdirecting popular attention from WJC's scandals at home, just like the aspirin factory bombings.
Their endurance in the face of hardship and their patriotism are unquestionably to be admired.
They have suffered sixty years of darkness and are attempting to build the framework of limited government and a free-market economy without any prior experience.
And, to make things worse, the apparatchiks/nomenklatura stole as much "state property" as they could. And frequently the do-gooder Western organizations that purported to assist either gave bad advice, or worse, wittingly or unwittingly helped the thieves.
When blat is required in order to get just about anything done, (this was the case then, and it is still the case today) it makes such efforts doubly difficult.
Comparably, we have undergone a sixty-year descent into an omnipresent Federal state: I would like to hope that perhaps the pendulum is beginning to turn back.
NATO sad to say is showing its age and the fiction of a mutual defense organization can last only so far. The USA is not even using NATO in this al-Qaeda/Afghan war because it barely works and those nations in NATO could not fight much outside their borders (which is fine for a self-defense alliance).
With the internal mistrust Kosovo created within NATO of America and the formation of the EU how long can NATO stay up and running? Time will tell. But I do not think the Europeans will turn to Russia for their sole defense and I don't think the USA will long be able to defend Europe by itself.
I much prefer the western fags' wonder of technology doing all the production in the factory than the Euro-Asian model of servitude for production. To me the former is much more protective of freedom.
Russia is the potemkin protector, if ever good willing, completely incompentent given the price it exacts for this protection. ANd the Euros are going to bleed to death, the way Germany is bleeding for East Germany and all those other screwy deals it got itself into after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
American protection is much more genuine IMHO.
W h a t - i s - y o u r - p o i n t ?
First of all, saying "x=Hitler" is, as far as rhetoric goes, almost always goes ridiculously over the top. Remember how silly Clinton sounded telling us Milosevic was Hitler (but only after he had decided that he needed a legacy)? Remember how silly Milosevic sounded calling Clinton Hitler? Questions of cheap rhetoric aside, even if we ignore that Russia has enacted a flat tax, land ownership, and the right to own property, you cannot ignore that legislation recently passed the Russian Duma leading to the restoration of trial by jury after an absence of eighty years.
Now, we may assume, for the sake of argument, that a president who pushes legislation through his parliament allowing property ownership, a flat tax, and trial by jury to simply be an evil Stalinist bent on conquering all Europe, but I rather doubt it. Putin may not be a crusader for democracy and freedom, but he is a patriot, and he does realize that, in the end, freedom and democracy will be far better for Russia than 70 years of a communist dictatorship which ruined his country both materially and spiritually.
This is not to say that there are not still some very nasty Communists out there. Once the Russia/Belorussia union goes through, the danger will be Lychenko attempting to run for president and make himself dictator. But let's also be realistic about the likelihood of this. Since 1991 the Communists have never been able to muster a signifigant vote either for their presidential candidate; they form a sizable minority in the Duma, but this is only because Russia in many ways still lacks a credible center right opposition. Let us also remember Putin's own words. He was asked whether or not he was worried about American soldiers operating in Russian military bases in former Soviet republics. He quite sensibly replied that he was more worried about the threat to Russia from Central Asian terrorists.
The EU's BEEN a Soviet for some time already, comrade.
If Putin is serious about a decent relationship with the US, that would be the best of all worlds for both countries.
I trust Putin, but we have to remember that he's just one man. If the rest of the country pulls behind him there's a pretty bright future for Russia. If it turns out that Putin is a fluke, just one man out of millions, then there could be real trouble someday. It's going to be interesting to watch.
It's very foolish for Russia to say that the US can't even protect ourselves, especially when you see what's happening in Afghanistan. We're showing them unprecidented respect and that kind of insult is out of line.
Russia guarrantee of peace? Go tell that to the Russians and others that were murdered
What the hell is this supposed to mean? If you mean that the Soviet Union is did that and it is gone then yes. But since you don't accept that a pagan who is baptised becomes a Christian (guess since we are all born unbaptised, none of us are Christians) then of course you don't accept that this changed.
I think I'm getting a mental profile of you. I bet you are 1. White, 2. male 3.middle to lower middle class 4. extremely religous in a very narrow sense of things (you are probably fundimentalist) 5. in your late 40's to 50's 6. Grew up believing all the propaganda that the government spoon fed you since the day you were old enough to get off of your mama's tit.
So, how far off am I?
Yup I do have a point about your warped racism. Number one, bright eyes, we Slavs are Indo-Europeans...familiar with the term maybe? Maybe not. We are from the same stock as all Europeans, Hindues and Gypsies and Assyrians. Certain features might give it away: blond to light brown hair, light eyes, fair skin, oval eyes....but I'm sure we all look like Mongols to you, so what's the point. As for our mentality, thank God that only a few of our people have the lavatav (your mentality).
That too was my whole point. I have nothing against slavs, just those who think they can take stuff and forget the past because they have lot's of nukes.
Oh that's right, you're on the side of freedom though, so that makes everything alright.
Thank you so much for this Serge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.