"Siitäs sait, Vladimir" - Naton valintapiikki Venäjälle yllätti muutkin
ARNO RYDMAN8 tuntia ja 44 minuuttia sitten (päivitetty 8 tuntia ja 43 minuuttia sitten)
Tutkijan mukaan Montenegro valitsi Nato-jäsenyydellään länsimaiset arvot, hallintokäytännöt ja puolustusjärjestelyt.
Montenegron varapääministeri Igor Luksic (vasemmalla) ja Naton pääsihteeri Jens Stoltenberg.(Lehtikuva/AFP)
– On rohkea veto kutsua pikkuruinen Montenegro sotilasliitto Naton jäseneksi – se on samalla piikki Venäjän suorittamalle aggressiolle, kirjoittaa Hoover-instituutin tutkija Kori Schake Foreign Policyssa.
Sotilasliitto Naton jäsenmaiden ulkoministerit päättivät keskiviikkoaamuna kutsua Montenegron virallisesti jäsenekseen.
– Kolminkertainen hurraa-huuto lännelle, Schake kirjoittaa kirjoituksessaan, jonka otsikko on ”Siitäs sait, Vladimir!”
Schaken mukaan tämä ei muuta tilannetta epäedulliseksi Venäjän kannalta, mutta kyse on selvästä piikistä Venäjälle. (Mitä tämä on? Lastentarhan touhua? Ihmiset, tässä on ihmishengistä kysymys, eikä piikeistä kenellekään... Jumakauta... EP.)
– Se todistaa, että rappeutunut, sekaisin oleva, väittelynhaluinen ja epäröivä länsi voi todellakin ottaa kantaa ja puolustaa arvojaan sekä turvallisuuttaan. (Millä? Montenegron jäsenyydellä? EP.) Se osoittaa kansainvälisten instituutioiden tärkeyden normien ja yhteistyön luomisessa. (Ja tämän takia kaikki riitelevät keskenään ja kiroavat Brysselin normikäskyjä? EP.)
Schaken mukaan Presidentti Vladimir Putinin johtama Venäjä on aggressiivisesti käyttäytyvä geopoliittinen toimija, joka horjuttaa naapurimaiden vakautta, varastaa muiden maiden alueita ja pitää oikeutenaan puolustaa venäjänkielisiä ihmisiä siellä missä he sattuvat asumaan. (Horjuttaa millä? Toimittamalla halpaa kaasua ja öljyä niin kuin Ukrainaan ja Baltian maihin? USA käyttäytyy aggressiivisesti koko ajan ja pitää oikeutena ei vaan puolustaa omiaan, vaan puuttua muiden maiden asioihin milloin haluaa voimakeinoin, jos se niin tahtoo. Ja...? EP.)
– Venäjä rikkoo aserajoitussopimuksia, ryhtyy sotilaallisiin provokaatioihin länsimaita vastaan ja pyrkii hyötymään siitä, että länsimaat eivät pyri aktiivisesti asemoimaan itseään ratkaisijan rooliin Lähi-idässä.
(Se että Venäjä on poistunut SNTL:n ja Varsovan Liiton sopimuksista on ihan laillista ja oikein, näyttäkää minulle Venäjän sotilaallisia PROVOKAATIOITA länsimäitä vastaan - tyhjiä sanoja vaan. Venäjä on typeryksen tapaan riisuutunut kaikista aseista vuonna 1991, Nato ja USA eivät. Venäjä edelleen ostaa US treasureita, eikä pysty emitoida omaa valuuttansa ilman niitä. Koska tyhmä Venäjä on omaksunut Keskuspankkien järjestelmää. Ja nyt se antaa rahansa pois USA:lle omaan talouteensa investoinnin sijaan. Mutta sehän on vain naapurien vakauden horjuttamista.
Ja jos Pariisi ei opettanut vielä länsimäitä aktiivisesti puolustautumaan terroria vastaan - niin siitä vaan, odottakaa seuraavia iskuja. Venäjä päätti ryhtyä tositoimin ja teki sen; koalitio esitti taistelevansa Syriassa (ilman sen hallituksen tai YK:n lupaa) ja Irakissa - ja nyt ISIS on joka paikassa, Saudit puhuvat jo "toteutuneesta Islamivaltiosta" ja ehdottavat neuvotteluja sen kanssa. Hyvä-hyvä, siitä vaan neuvottelemaan... EP.)
Schake mielestä Putinin hallinnon pitäisi kysyä itseltään, miksi Montenegro haluaa liittyä Natoon niin epätoivoisesti. Vuonna 1999 Nato taisteli Montenegroa vastaan Kosovon sodassa. (Koska se on nyt pieni valtionpilkku keskellä Eurooppaa ja pelkää tulla vahingossa tuhotuksi. Vuonna 1999 Montenegro vielä muisti valtavan ja kauniin Jugoslavian osana olemista. Nyt se on mennyttä. EP)
– Moskova on pyrkinyt pitkään luomaan kuvan, että Nato aloitti aggressiollaan Kosovon sodan. (Ja kuka sitten aloitti? Montenegro??? vai Venäjä??? Kuka ryntäsi puolustamaan "sorrettuja" albanimuslimeja keskellä Eurooppaa? ja muutti Kosovon terroristi- ja huumeliigojen valmennusleiriksi ja trafikin keskukseksi? EP.)
Schake mielestä Putinin hallinnon pitäisi kysyä itseltään, miksi Montenegro haluaa liittyä Natoon niin epätoivoisesti. Vuonna 1999 Nato taisteli Montenegroa vastaan Kosovon sodassa. (Koska se on nyt pieni valtionpilkku keskellä Eurooppaa ja pelkää tulla vahingossa tuhotuksi. Vuonna 1999 Montenegro vielä muisti valtavan ja kauniin Jugoslavian osana olemista. Nyt se on mennyttä. EP)
– Moskova on pyrkinyt pitkään luomaan kuvan, että Nato aloitti aggressiollaan Kosovon sodan. (Ja kuka sitten aloitti? Montenegro??? vai Venäjä??? Kuka ryntäsi puolustamaan "sorrettuja" albanimuslimeja keskellä Eurooppaa? ja muutti Kosovon terroristi- ja huumeliigojen valmennusleiriksi ja trafikin keskukseksi? EP.)
Mutta ne hallitukset, joita vastaan Nato taisteli, näkevät asian toisin. Montenegro on valinnut länsimaiset arvot, hallintokäytännöt ja puolustusjärjestelyt. (joo-joo, niin kuin Kreikkakin... EP.)
Georgia Today ihmettelee kirjoituksessaan, miksi Georgiaa ei ole vieläkään hyväksytty Naton jäseneksi, vaikka maa on ilmaissut halunsa liittyä sotilasliiton jäseneksi jo ajat sitten. Lehti huomauttaa Naton avoimien ovien politiikasta, jonka mukaan kuka tahansa voi hakea sen jäsenyyttä.
Lisäksi lehti huomauttaa, että Georgian suhteet Natoon ovat hyvät ja maa on ottanut askeleita eteenpäin polullaan kohti jäsenyyttä. Georgia on toteuttanut kahdenvälistä yhteistyötä järjestämällä yhteisiä harjoituksia ja perustamalla koulutuskeskuksen. (Ai, että seuraava piikki Venäjälle? EP.)
Ja tässä on teille alkuperäisen artikkelin kirjoittaja. Enjoy!
About Kori Schake
Kori Schake is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and contributor to Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government blog.
Foreign Policy
(Yes, together with BRICS and SHOS, the EURAES is indeed deeply isolated from democratizing influences. I think, Russia has had enough of "western democracy" since 1991, thank God, it is over. Russia is free, democratic and stable now. It has problems. Capitalism is bad for Russia. But it will be tamed in good time. At least, Russians (all of them inside one multicultural country) have learned again to love their country, not to hate or despise it. EP.)
Photo credit: JONATHAN ERNST/AFP/Getty Images
Georgia Today ihmettelee kirjoituksessaan, miksi Georgiaa ei ole vieläkään hyväksytty Naton jäseneksi, vaikka maa on ilmaissut halunsa liittyä sotilasliiton jäseneksi jo ajat sitten. Lehti huomauttaa Naton avoimien ovien politiikasta, jonka mukaan kuka tahansa voi hakea sen jäsenyyttä.
Lisäksi lehti huomauttaa, että Georgian suhteet Natoon ovat hyvät ja maa on ottanut askeleita eteenpäin polullaan kohti jäsenyyttä. Georgia on toteuttanut kahdenvälistä yhteistyötä järjestämällä yhteisiä harjoituksia ja perustamalla koulutuskeskuksen. (Ai, että seuraava piikki Venäjälle? EP.)
Ja tässä on teille alkuperäisen artikkelin kirjoittaja. Enjoy!
About Kori Schake
Kori Schake is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and contributor to Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government blog.
Foreign Policy
VOICE
It’s a bold move to invite tiny Montenegro to join the NATO alliance — and a rebuke to Russian aggression.
BY KORI SCHAKE
DECEMBER 2, 2015
Moscow is asserting itself as a resurgent and aggressive geopolitical player, destabilizing neighboring countries, stealing territory, claiming a sweeping “right” to defend the interest of Russian-speaking people wherever they choose to live, serially violating arms control agreements, engaging in military provocations against Western countries, and capitalizing on the hesitance of Western countries to position itself as the determiner of outcomes in the Middle East.
In this foreboding environment, NATO’s 28 governments just elected to invite the democratizing Balkan country of Montenegro to join an alliance committed to mutual defense. Three cheers for the West!
The military of Montenegro adds just 2,000 troops to the NATO arsenal of 3,508,000 and just $5 billion to the NATO pool of $892 billion. Its navy comprises five patrol boats and five landing craft. While Moscow might not be quivering with fear, NATO’s offer is a clear rebuke — proof that our decadent, disorganized, argumentative, and hesitant West can actually take a stand in defense of its values and security. It shows the importance of international institutions in creating norms and facilitating cooperation.
There will be those — knowledgeable and serious-minded — that oppose expanding the alliance. I was among them in 1999, believing Europe was best made whole and free (where do you see whole and free Europe? In Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland? EP.) by building a cooperative relationship with Moscow, and worried about defending countries exposed to Russia when that obligation would fall principally to the United States. (Did US ever have to defend anybody against Russia??? Ever? EP.)
But there are three weaknesses to that approach. First, it punishes those countries that want and, by their internal reforms and stabilizing foreign policies, have earned inclusion in our defense alliance. They are not to blame for Russia’s insecurity. (Why not, if it paranoia? EP.)
Take That, Vladimir!
It’s a bold move to invite tiny Montenegro to join the NATO alliance — and a rebuke to Russian aggression.
BY KORI SCHAKE
DECEMBER 2, 2015
Moscow is asserting itself as a resurgent and aggressive geopolitical player, destabilizing neighboring countries, stealing territory, claiming a sweeping “right” to defend the interest of Russian-speaking people wherever they choose to live, serially violating arms control agreements, engaging in military provocations against Western countries, and capitalizing on the hesitance of Western countries to position itself as the determiner of outcomes in the Middle East.
In this foreboding environment, NATO’s 28 governments just elected to invite the democratizing Balkan country of Montenegro to join an alliance committed to mutual defense. Three cheers for the West!
The military of Montenegro adds just 2,000 troops to the NATO arsenal of 3,508,000 and just $5 billion to the NATO pool of $892 billion. Its navy comprises five patrol boats and five landing craft. While Moscow might not be quivering with fear, NATO’s offer is a clear rebuke — proof that our decadent, disorganized, argumentative, and hesitant West can actually take a stand in defense of its values and security. It shows the importance of international institutions in creating norms and facilitating cooperation.
There will be those — knowledgeable and serious-minded — that oppose expanding the alliance. I was among them in 1999, believing Europe was best made whole and free (where do you see whole and free Europe? In Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Iceland? EP.) by building a cooperative relationship with Moscow, and worried about defending countries exposed to Russia when that obligation would fall principally to the United States. (Did US ever have to defend anybody against Russia??? Ever? EP.)
But there are three weaknesses to that approach. First, it punishes those countries that want and, by their internal reforms and stabilizing foreign policies, have earned inclusion in our defense alliance. They are not to blame for Russia’s insecurity. (Why not, if it paranoia? EP.)
The Membership Action Plans that NATO develops for countries aspiring to join it require transparency in the functioning of government and commitment to democratic values. The fact that some member states fall short of these goals — authoritarian crackdown in Turkey; insidious corruption in Bulgaria, Romania, and Albania; Hungary’s creeping illiberalism (and what is that? EP.) — does not make it fair to punish other aspiring countries for these failures and in any event has led to even more rigorous standards.
Second, it diminishes our leverage on countries in transition to reform their societies and their foreign policies in ways that both they and we will benefit from. The magnetism of belonging to the West is one of NATO and the European Union’s strong cards to shape Europe’s “neighborhood.” We are ultimately more secure when countries become liberal in their politics and economics, and their desire to gain our protection (FROM WHAT? EP.) has been a significant factor in strengthening forces of reform within countries. This is soft power: the attractiveness of norms and the use of leverage to engender positive change. (Like in Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, or maybe Libya, Egypt or Iraq? Or Syria? EP.)
Third, it rewards Moscow for destabilizing its neighbors. (Destabilizing by what, by cheap deliveries of gas and oil? Like to Ukraine, Litva, Latvia, Estonia? By trade, over which the Baltic countries, Poland and Ukraine are still crying, demanding, that Russia continues to buy their däiry products and canned fish or apples, which were banned after the western sanctions upon Russia? EP.)
Second, it diminishes our leverage on countries in transition to reform their societies and their foreign policies in ways that both they and we will benefit from. The magnetism of belonging to the West is one of NATO and the European Union’s strong cards to shape Europe’s “neighborhood.” We are ultimately more secure when countries become liberal in their politics and economics, and their desire to gain our protection (FROM WHAT? EP.) has been a significant factor in strengthening forces of reform within countries. This is soft power: the attractiveness of norms and the use of leverage to engender positive change. (Like in Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, or maybe Libya, Egypt or Iraq? Or Syria? EP.)
Third, it rewards Moscow for destabilizing its neighbors. (Destabilizing by what, by cheap deliveries of gas and oil? Like to Ukraine, Litva, Latvia, Estonia? By trade, over which the Baltic countries, Poland and Ukraine are still crying, demanding, that Russia continues to buy their däiry products and canned fish or apples, which were banned after the western sanctions upon Russia? EP.)
A cooperative relationship with Russia proved impossible because of Russia, not because of NATO. (Based on what? In 1991 Russia had disarmed itself like a fool with no agreements, Nato and US hadn't. Nato has expanded to the russian borders with no reason to do it. Put some PROs in the neighboring countries, aimed at ... Iran. Russia is still buying US treasuries instead of investing in its own economy and cannot emit its own currency without it, because it had joined the Central Bank System, MVF and WTO. And Russia proved impossible to cooperate with? People, you are ignorent or vicious. Really. EP.)
Vladimir Putin is responsible for the West’s wariness. (Putin is responsible FOR EVERYTHING! Didn't you know? EP.) NATO allies have not been eager to prove the door remains open to future members: For example, Georgia’s bid has been effectively stalled by Russian aggression, despite strong advocacy from George W. Bush’s administration before 2008. Russia’s reprehensible behavior in Ukraine has changed the dynamic, however, revealing the Kremlin’s willingness to infiltrate countries and stoke violence to sustain governments as corrupt as their own. (What about US's reprehensable behavior in Ukraine? and by the way, is the present ukrainian government LESS corrupt than its previous? EP.)
Secretary of State John Kerry made the NATO case simply and best: “It’s a defensive alliance. It is meant to simply provide security.”
For Russia to object to NATO expansion is to support instability.
(Are you completely insane, Nato is at the borders of Russia already, it aims to be able to provide LEVERAGE in foreign relations against Russia, and you say Russia supports instability? Show me Russian military bases over the world - how many? and you surely remember over 800 USA and Nato military facilities over Europe (200) and the world. Bold, indeed. EP.)
The Russian establishment ought to ask itself why Montenegro so desperately wants to join NATO. The NATO alliance fought Montenegro as recently as 1999, when it came to the defense of Kosovo.
The Russian establishment ought to ask itself why Montenegro so desperately wants to join NATO. The NATO alliance fought Montenegro as recently as 1999, when it came to the defense of Kosovo.
(Because, now it is a small and powerless dot of a country among the other 7 into which big and prosperous Jugoslavia had been transformed by Nato in that war. EP.)
Moscow has long tried to paint that war as NATO aggression, but the very governments the alliance was fighting against understand it differently. (Do they really? Who asked them??? EP.) Montenegro has chosen to align itself with the values of the West, the governmental practices of the West, and the defense arrangements of the West. (Against whom? Iran? EP.)
Not that we should expect Moscow to be happy about all of this. Russia has tried to forestall any NATO expansion, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying in September it would be “a mistake, even a provocation.” And Putin’s spokesman announced there would be “retaliatory actions.” The Russian government announced the cessation of cooperative security programs as a first measure. The thing is, Russia will before much longer run out of countries to cut itself off from. Which, sadly, may be Putin’s actual objective: the complete isolation of Russia from democratizing influences.
Not that we should expect Moscow to be happy about all of this. Russia has tried to forestall any NATO expansion, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying in September it would be “a mistake, even a provocation.” And Putin’s spokesman announced there would be “retaliatory actions.” The Russian government announced the cessation of cooperative security programs as a first measure. The thing is, Russia will before much longer run out of countries to cut itself off from. Which, sadly, may be Putin’s actual objective: the complete isolation of Russia from democratizing influences.
(Yes, together with BRICS and SHOS, the EURAES is indeed deeply isolated from democratizing influences. I think, Russia has had enough of "western democracy" since 1991, thank God, it is over. Russia is free, democratic and stable now. It has problems. Capitalism is bad for Russia. But it will be tamed in good time. At least, Russians (all of them inside one multicultural country) have learned again to love their country, not to hate or despise it. EP.)
Photo credit: JONATHAN ERNST/AFP/Getty Images
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti