Официальная страница политика и общественного деятеля

Наталии Алексеевны Нарочницкой

Н. Нарочницкая член Комиссии, при Президенте Российской Федерации по противодействию попыткам фальсификации истории в ущерб интересам России.

Наталия Алексеевна Нарочницкая – известный ученый, общественно-политический деятель, православный идеолог, доктор исторических наук

Европейский институт демократии и сотрудничества (Париж) возглавляет Наталия Алексеевна Нарочницкая

Фонд исторической перспективы (ФИП) был создан в 2004 году Наталией Алексеевной Нарочницкой и группой ее соратников.

Информационно-аналитический портал, посвященный деятельности российского ученого, общественного деятеля Наталии Алексеевны Нарочницкой

Декабрь 2011
Пн Вт Ср Чт Пт Сб Вс
« Ноя    
  1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  



. (In 1994, the so-called Baltic assembly had already «demanded’’ the demilitarization of this «territory’’.) While Russia, in the north, is almost returned to the state it was in before the Livonian War and may lose the access to sea in military dimensions, then Russia’s historical role as a Black Sea power is also being rapidly destroyed in the Black Sea and together with this, the balance of power in this basin, which threatens a return of the Eastern issue from the past century. In policy of the «post-Soviet’’ Black Sea region, an increasingly active role is being allotted to «Atlantic» Turkey which is actively forming diplomatic and political ties with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. But Turkey is demonstrating an independent, irrepressible effort to penetrate into the Crimea, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The Ukraine found itself under strong pressure from Uniatist Galicia which was actively inspiring by Catholicism and Crimean Tatar activists, glimpsing the chance to slip out of Kiev’s weak ties into an «association» with Istanbul, for which it is necessary to ultimately exclude Russia. But throwing Russia back to the situation it was in before the Treaty of Yasi (1791), in which Turkey acknowledged the Crimea as belonging only to Russia, or even before this, the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji (1774), which confirmed the Crimea’s independence from Turkey, projects a fully unexpected future and if one may lay one’s imagination run on this topic in regard to, say, the example of Cyprus…

These occurrences are developing on the backdrop of a sharp change in the military and strategic situation in the Balkans, which NATO has overtly invaded. The encouragement of the potential strengthening of ties with a political and strategic partnership between the Ukraine and the Baltic states under the aegis of western military and political structures is clearly seen. This course has not of yet been realized, yet one should be aware of the danger in forming a sanitary cordon under NATO’s control which would extend from the Baltic to the Black Sea, sealing off Russia up in a geopolitical sack, and also be aware of the growing role of the Dniester region as a single point of Russian support, after the Russian ships left Izmail, in the direction of the Danube and Balkans. Having reviewed the borders and the sea boundaries of Russia, one may be reminded that in the Far East, Japan has already undergone one round (and it looks as if will not be the last) of an unprecedented onslaught with the purpose of re-examining the territorial outcomes of the second world war in order to get back the Kuril Islands, which inevitably undermines the solidity of the post-war territorial outcomes in Europe. Russia is being squeezed inward by a ring of geopolitical interests which are plotting historical revenge; a change in positions in one matter gives legal basis for pressuring Russia in another matter creating a domino effect.

Something that is becoming a complex problem for Russian interests are the multilateral mechanisms which are slipping out from under control, and for the creation of which, at one time, immense political and material resources were spent. Large international structures, reflecting a post-war correlation of forces in international relations and regarded as their superstructure, immediately reacted to the denial of the perpetual line of foreign policy and of the subsequently immediate weakening of Russia. The UN and CSCE allowed themselves to openly display a double standard in regard to events taking place on the territory of the USSR and later, in Yugoslavia.

Despite the propagandist rhetoric from both sides that surrounded the Conference on security and cooperation in Europe during its establishment, it, after many years of agreements on approaches, reflected definite mutual obligations. From the West, the USSR again received a sought for contemporary validation in regard to the Yalta-Potsdam system, an acknowledgment of the legality of territorial integrity in the post-war borders of European countries, first and foremost its own borders as well as the western border of Poland, i.e. the border along the Oder and Neisse rivers. This signified the acceptance by the West in the Helsinki Final Act of the restoration of historic Russia’s territories which were lost (not without the help of the West) during the revolution and civil war. Out of the Final Act of the CSCE emerged the fact that the Baltic region is recognized as a part of the USSR (the USA was the only one to have reservations about this). The West received a sought for agreement from the USSR on the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Europe which was realized later in a time frame determined by the CFE Treaty. It is obvious that out of all these mutual obligations, only ours were fulfilled.

In 1991-1992, the UN and the CSCE openly disregarded the principle of universality in the norms of international law. Thus, for the hasty acknowledgment of the dismemberment of the USSR and Yugoslavia, UN founding nations and participants in the Helsinki act (although it was namely their territorial integrity and not the one of the subjects of their federations that was guaranteed in the Final Act by all of the 35 nations that signed it), the mandate on the peaceful alteration of borders was applied without the indication that such an alteration is possible only in coordination with constitutional procedures that ensure the rights of people. But the territory of the seceding republics, Moldavia, Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Ukraine, were declared not to be subject to change, and the multitude of peoples who reside there, including those who were divided, were deprived of the right of free will in the matter of their own choice of government

Читать далее:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

В архиве 22 декабря 2003

Добавить комментарий

Для отправки комментария вы должны авторизоваться.


У всех кавказских войн немусульманские режиссеры.

RSS Новости Фонда

  • Состоялась презентация книги "Дело партизана Кононова" 16.11.2011
  • «Россия и Испания: Очарование через расстояния» 31.10.2011
  • В Париже прошел вечер дебатов «Европе не избежать переустройства собственной архитектуры безопасности» 31.10.2011
  • Состоялась конференция «П.А.Столыпин и современная Россия» 30.10.2011
Rambler's Top100