Foreign Policy Magazine two months ago published very interesting article written by Professor Andrew J. Bacevich on NATO Pact’s future and as he stated much needed US withdraw from NATO. He also argued that Europe will be more ready to accomplish all her duties through NATO bodies if there is no US presence and US domination over actions and decisions. Bacevich also thinks that on that way Europe will be much more successful in protection of territorial integrity of Poland and Lithuania from plausible Russian aggression.
“So let NATO attend to this new (or residential) Russian problem. Present-day Europeans-even European with a pronounced aversion to war – are fully capable of mounting the defences necessary to deflect a much reduced Eastern threat. So why not have the citizens of France and Germany guarantee the territorial integrity of Poland and Lithuania, instead of fruitlessly demanding that Europeans take on responsibilities on the other side of the world that they can’t and won’t”, said Professor Bacevich.
FP’s last issue, for May/June 2010, brings a response on his article written by Russian Permanent Representative to NATO, Ambassador Dmitry Rogozin. Ambassador Rogozin present us with a contra arguments to quoted Bacevich stands and as he said he wants to translate to us Bacevich words, but his “translation” is lost somewhere in “translation”.
“Bacevich also suggests that a NATO free of U.S. influence could take responsibility for ‘guarantee[ing] the territorial integrity of Poland and Lithuania.’ As a linguist by training, allow me to translate. In the Western press, ‘the territorial integrity of Poland and Lithuania’ tends to mean ‘defense from Russian aggression.’ This idea is simply ridiculous: Democratic Russia has never given cause for Baltic or Eastern Europe states to tremble over their sovereignty or security despite NATO’s attempts to portray Russia as an enemy threatening to attack in the dead of night (the way ‘NATO ally’ Mikheil Saakashvili launched an attack on South Ossetia in 2008)”, said Ambassador Rogozin in his response.
Previously I said that his “translation” is lost somewhere and it is. Whole democratic and truthful world knows very well that ‘Democratic’ Russia attacked Georgia over South Ossetia self-proclaimed independence from Georgia. Two years ago we saw dozens of thousands Russian soldiers and heavy duty armoured weapons on Georgian territory; that was nothing else than an aggression on independent and sovereign state. More over the map of Georgia speaks loudly and openly against his words. Less than two weeks ago I wrote here an article based upon media reports about new Russian army investments in South Ossetia on Georgian territory. Beside that Russia stationed dozen of thousands soldiers and army bureaucrats on Georgian territory near city of Tskhinvali not to away from Georgian capital of Tbilisi. So how Ambassador Rogozin can say that ‘Democratic’ Russia is not thereat to Poland or Lithuania when they are already stationed in self-proclaimed ‘state’ of South Ossetia?
Based on all pro and cons in this case and other cases were Russia plays important army or political role the best conclusion can be that Rogozin presented to us a whole bunch of bureaucratic charades and false impressions. If they withdrew their officials and soldiers from South Ossetia and if they help Georgia to establish her rule over rebellion region of South Ossetia his words will became true and fact, until they did so his words are just dead letter on the paper.
From Bosnia to Canada 