ИНФОРМАЦИОННО-АНАЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ ПОРТАЛ

НАРОЧНИЦКАЯ.РУ

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  

Баннеры


SPIRITUAL AND GEOPOLITICAL RIVALRY AT THE BRINK OF THE XXI CENTURY

. The memories of Sudety, Silesia, the Danzig corridor are still alive and this is only aggravated by the fact that in Germany they are increasingly more actively beginning to hint at the necessity of reviewing these «historical problems».)
The expansion of NATO will ultimately change the already undermined military and strategic symmetries and configurations that emerged from the Treaty on the limitation of conventional forces (the CFE treaty), for the correlation in arms alone is becoming 2:1 in favour of NATO with the entry of some East European states.

It is becoming clear that a washing away of obstacles for the entry into NATO by a part of historical Russia has been assisted by subsequent, although not externally related, programmed directives of western policy, the most important of which being:
I. The recognition of the Baltic states as not being separated parts of the Soviet Union, rather as restored pre-war states. (A violation of the Helsinki Final Act, which confirmed the legality of the territorial integrity of all post-war European states.) But according to this concept, it must be that Russia was an occupational force, the demographic situation was the result of the occupational regime, Russian troops were occupational in nature and were subject to an unconditional withdrawal. Legally, this territory from the very beginning withdrew from a unified military and strategic region of the USSR, which was inherited by Russia according to the treaties pertaining to disarmament.

2. The attempt to indirectly enable, in particular, through new initiatives in the area of nuclear disarmament (the START- I Treaty), the destruction or devaluation of the existing system of nuclear restraint and treaties on anti-missile defence (first and foremost the ABM Treaty and its applicable protocol of 1974), that link all the territories of the USSR on which Russia may fulfil its requirements. Today, Russia’s geopolitical interests, in essence, are hardly being taken into account in the sense of how it is preserving its role as a power while it is still powerful; second-place after the USA in the significance of its nuclear missile potential. If the START-2 Treaty is ratified and Poland enters NATO, then from its territory, nuclear missiles can be delivered all the way to St.Petersburg using howitzers and all the way to Moscow using cruise missiles.

3. The gradual attraction of East European countries and, what is especially Important, parts of the USSR Into the sphere of NATO’s control and activity under the program «Partnership for peace» is a step to converting parts of Russia’s military and strategic areas into the object of multilateral regulation. Those who enter the program formulate their goals in «presentational documents» indicating which ones might conflict with the interests of others and mainly of Russia, which, after the participants have signed the agreement, is deprived of the right to adequately oppose them. Ukraine (to which there has been redirected substantial US foreign policy and financial means), Georgia, Moldavia, all of which have serious problems with Russia (the Crimea, Sevastopol’, the Dniester region, Ossetia, and Abkhazia) have become members of this program. Russia’s acceptance into the program, it would seem, should be expected to be (experts during the hearings in the State Duma spoke unanimously about this) no more than a manoeuvre for diversion.

Nonetheless, Russia has opportunities to hinder such a development of events if it relics on the well-composed system of legal and political bases that confirm its role and responsibility in the East European region and on its own historical territories. The international structures that were formed in the decade following the war, as well as negotiation mechanisms and treaties even in the altered situation still may and must be used for the vindication of Russian interests, first and foremost being the impediment of NATO’s expansion. An important argument that Russia has begun to use, two years late it would appear, is the overturn of all military and strategic symmetries in regard to the CFE Treaty.

A conceptual judicial instrument may be the idea that all the territories of the USSR in the borders from 1975 that are confirmed in the Final Act of Helsinki are, through treaties, zones of Russian responsibility and security, its military and strategic space that was inherited by Russia from the USSR due to the passing down of rights recognized by the whole world in treaties pertaining to nuclear and conventional weapons (especially the ABM Treaty), which continue to be in effect in this geographical region. Not one state can allow the presence of armed forces from a third party on its military and strategic space or the entry of portions of this space into blocs or alliances that are hostile to that state.

Theoretically, reserves for eliminating distortions in the activity of western mechanisms and structures are available: the double standard that was accepted by the USA and European organizations is so obvious that forming a basis for a solid position is not so complicated as well as a selection of a level of the necessary solidity as well as of areas of dispute supported by real opportunities and home-front services. Perhaps this level of the celebrated «closeness» and trust in relations with Russia which the US does not feel comfortable to write off, is a convenient backdrop for correcting the course of events

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.

Цитата:

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