Skybird
07-14-07, 05:01 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6898690.stm
The treaty was aiming at making surprising military attacks on other states impossible, and for that purpose was defining maximums for heavy weapons between the Atlantic and the Ural, negotiated in 1990 by 16 NATO states and 6 WP states participated. In 1999, 30 states negotiated over changes and amandements dealing with troops levels on national level, which should not be changed without consulatations with other states in the future. Russia ratified that treaty in 2004, but NATO states have refused to do so until today, demanding the Russian troops withdraw from Moldavia and Georgie as well.
Russia repeatedly threatened to put that treaty on ice if the NATO member would not follow the Russian example and ratify the treaty.
Recent diplomatic tensions over the ABM-system the US plan to establish in Poland and the Czech Republic did not help to ease the growing diplomatic rift. But the latter is not the reason for today'S news, but longterm changes in Russian policies (that I have forseen and predicted for some years now and back then earned nothing but laughter for ;) ). And it is nicely tied up in this BBC essay with which I agree very much:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6236952.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6236952.stm)
It's no new cold war, but NATO and especially the US must learn that the times of Yeltzin's weakness and the raising of the oligarchs - helped by foreign and almost predatory investors - are over - you need to take Russia serious again. They reached that level faster then even I have estimated (I thought of 25-30 years, but now it is 18 years since German unification). The earlier you do, the earlier we will have a healing of relations with this competing neighbour again. Try to encircle them, isolate them with a ring of small tripwiring military bases even more and push them against the wall, and you must not be surprised if they start to push you back with growing anger and force. Europe must carefully assess if it really can afford such blows. My answer is No. Like it or not, but we need Russia more than Russia needs us. Plus: Russia's motivations and intentions maybe arwe that of a competitor, but they are transparent, and predictable. Taking that as a basis can form mutual trust. Trying to mutually cheat each other, cannot.
This should also be taken into account when still wanting to press for NATO memebership of Ukraine, and other political provocations.
Currently there is no heavy weight boxer of world format coming from the US. After Klitschko (Ukraine) lectured Lamon Brewster last weekend, almost all international top heavy weight boxers and title-holders are all - from the Slavic nations. :lol:
The treaty was aiming at making surprising military attacks on other states impossible, and for that purpose was defining maximums for heavy weapons between the Atlantic and the Ural, negotiated in 1990 by 16 NATO states and 6 WP states participated. In 1999, 30 states negotiated over changes and amandements dealing with troops levels on national level, which should not be changed without consulatations with other states in the future. Russia ratified that treaty in 2004, but NATO states have refused to do so until today, demanding the Russian troops withdraw from Moldavia and Georgie as well.
Russia repeatedly threatened to put that treaty on ice if the NATO member would not follow the Russian example and ratify the treaty.
Recent diplomatic tensions over the ABM-system the US plan to establish in Poland and the Czech Republic did not help to ease the growing diplomatic rift. But the latter is not the reason for today'S news, but longterm changes in Russian policies (that I have forseen and predicted for some years now and back then earned nothing but laughter for ;) ). And it is nicely tied up in this BBC essay with which I agree very much:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6236952.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6236952.stm)
It's no new cold war, but NATO and especially the US must learn that the times of Yeltzin's weakness and the raising of the oligarchs - helped by foreign and almost predatory investors - are over - you need to take Russia serious again. They reached that level faster then even I have estimated (I thought of 25-30 years, but now it is 18 years since German unification). The earlier you do, the earlier we will have a healing of relations with this competing neighbour again. Try to encircle them, isolate them with a ring of small tripwiring military bases even more and push them against the wall, and you must not be surprised if they start to push you back with growing anger and force. Europe must carefully assess if it really can afford such blows. My answer is No. Like it or not, but we need Russia more than Russia needs us. Plus: Russia's motivations and intentions maybe arwe that of a competitor, but they are transparent, and predictable. Taking that as a basis can form mutual trust. Trying to mutually cheat each other, cannot.
This should also be taken into account when still wanting to press for NATO memebership of Ukraine, and other political provocations.
Currently there is no heavy weight boxer of world format coming from the US. After Klitschko (Ukraine) lectured Lamon Brewster last weekend, almost all international top heavy weight boxers and title-holders are all - from the Slavic nations. :lol: