In January of this year, the first leaks of information in the media appeared that the construction of a NATO base was under way near Ulyanovsk.
The fact that additional potential is being created on the territory of the Russian Federation, which is tied to the potential of NATO in Central Asia and Europe, the Russian authorities: the president, the prime minister, the foreign minister, and the defense minister have kept a full vow of silence.
Then protest rallies began in the Ulyanovsk region, the question was raised by the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. In March, 2012, Senator of the Council of Federation of the Russian Federation Nikolai Kondratenko, on behalf of a delegating body, told colleagues that the Kuban parliament had received an appeal to the President of the Russian Federation and the Security Council of the Russian Federation on the establishment of a "transit point" of NATO in Ulyanovsk. The document, in particular, expressed the position against the "foreign military presence in the heart of Russia."
It has become difficult to hide the emergence of NATO on the territory of the Russian Federation, but there is still no complete clarity about the plans of the Russian authorities on this issue.
Confused stories with the NATO base, the loudest voices in support of the NATO base are not from Washington and Brussels, but strangely enough from Russian ministries. Russian Defense Minister A. Serdyukov agreed with the “big mind” to the point that “Implementing this project in the interests of Russia's military security,” that is, after the reforms in its department, its army cannot ensure the security of the country.
The Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia explained the possible transit of NATO cargo from Afghanistan through Ulyanovsk. The published document states that the basic for addressing transit issues is the UN Security Council resolution 1386 from 2001, calling for the necessary assistance to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan that may be required, including the granting of permits for overflight and transit of goods. Thus, this issue was resolved 11 years ago at the level of not even Russia, but the UN!
The need for the emergence of NATO in Ulyanovsk was supported by the governor of the Ulyanovsk Oblast “Edinoros” Sergey Morozov, the former head of the special unit of the Ulyanovsk Oblast Directorate of Internal Affairs for combating drug trafficking, who along with A. Dvorkovich is an “expert” of the Moscow School of Political Studies, whose international board of trustees, heads Sir Rodrik Braithwaite, formerly Chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and who coordinates all special services and their relationship with the CIA. George Soros himself "knows and is impressed by the continuous efforts of the school to promote the foundations of democracy in the Russian Federation," and the FSB of the Russian Federation naturally knows nothing about this.
Alas, this topic of friendship between Russia and NATO is not new. Creeping expansion of NATO into the territory of the Warsaw Pact countries, the USSR, and then to Russia began a long time ago. Here, the pioneers were Messrs. M. Gorbachev and E. Shevardnadze, the baton of which was taken by B. Yeltsin, V. Putin, D. Medvedev and КХNUMX.
The appearance of NATO under Ulyanovsk was preceded by a long period of relations between the Russian Federation and NATO to the detriment of Russia. Here are just some milestones of cooperation.
After the collapse of the USSR 20 December 1991, Russia becomes one of the founding states of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (from 30 in May 1997 - the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council - EAPC). Then NATO gave us the word of honor that it would not expand to the East, but, alas, the expansion went. Only in March, 1992, in connection with the end of the Cold War, Russia and ten CIS countries were admitted to membership in the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC).
An additional impetus to the expansion of NATO can be called the statements of Russian President B. Yeltsin in August 1993 in Warsaw and Prague that Russia does not oppose the expansion of NATO to the East. Against the background of a reduction in defense spending, on the situation created after Boris Yeltsin’s Warsaw declaration on the admissibility of Poland’s entry into NATO and the start of a massive public campaign of the Polish-American Congress together with Z. Brzezinski and G. Kissinger for the early expansion of the alliance.
With the help of Russian Foreign Minister A. Kozyrev, the trend continued. In the early nineties, he discovered Russia for the transit of NATO. On the anniversary of the outbreak of war with fascism 22 June 1994 Russia joined the Partnership for Peace program, and then 19 June 1995 in Brussels on behalf of Russia, Foreign Minister A. Kozyrev signed an agreement.
Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a key mechanism for securing practical ties between NATO and partner countries in matters of security and deepening their ability for operational engagement. Detailed programs, reflecting the capabilities and interests of individual partner countries, ensure the cooperation of NATO member states and partner states in the field of transparency (full transparency) in the areas of national military planning and defense budgets; democratic control of the armed forces; willingness to cooperate, including in NATO-led peace enforcement operations.
27 May 1997. The Russia-NATO Summit took place. The Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security is signed, which laid the formal basis for relations between NATO and Russia. The signing of the Founding Act led to the development of a bilateral program of consultation and cooperation within the framework of the Permanent Joint Council (PCA).
18 July 1997 - the first meeting of the NATO-Russia ATP.
26 September 1997. The State Duma adopted Resolution No. 1756-II containing the Statement “On NATO military maneuvers near the borders of the Russian Federation”, which, inter alia, states: “It is beyond doubt that under the cover of statements on the peacekeeping nature of such maneuvers, The United States Army is actively developing new potential theaters of military operations in the immediate vicinity of the borders of the Russian Federation. It is possible that in the course of such ultra-long-range assault forces, the possibility of landing troops of the United States Army on the territory of the Russian Federation is being explored. ” But nobody paid attention to this statement, and it remained just a statement.
18 March 1998 - the official opening of the Russian mission to NATO.
In 1999, NATO’s geopolitical “branch” of NATO can be considered GUAM - a political union of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova, created by NATO against Russia. Thanks to GUAM, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan withdrew from the CIS Collective Security Treaty, for this reason the war of Georgia and Russia of the 2008 year became possible.
24 March 1999 - due to the beginning of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, Russia, suspension of cooperation with NATO. This demarche did not take the West seriously.
July 1999 - resumption of the ATP monthly meetings on issues already related to Kosovo.
16 February 2000 - the visit of the NATO Secretary General to Moscow, the resumption of cooperation in all areas of activity in the framework of the Russia-NATO ATP.
February 2001 - opening of the NATO Information Bureau in Moscow.
October 3 2001, President of the Russian Federation V. Putin joins Russia to the anti-terrorist coalition. With the support of President V. Putin, NATO places bases in Central Asia on the territory of the former Soviet Republics. After 11 September 2001, Putin personally called the Central Asian heads of state and recommended that they place NATO bases on their territories (then Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov admitted during his US trip, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 09.04.04). Apparently, too, not from a very big mind, S. Ivanov stated (and Serdyukov echoes him now (see above)): "The temporary placement of the American and NATO bases in the spaces of the Commonwealth is in the interests of Russia." But the "temporary" Americans are always perceived as "eternal." And this statement can be confirmed by the residents of Okinawa, the Philippines, and many Latin American and European states - where the US bases are located today, which are temporarily located from 1945 onwards. After frankly lobbying the interests of NATO by the Russian president, US military bases with intelligence structures appeared in Tajik Dushanbe and Kulyab, Uzbek Khanabad and Kokaydy, Kyrgyz Manas, in Atyrau (Kazakhstan). The US military is also stationed in Azerbaijan and Georgia.
From 2001 to 2011, over the 100 airspace of Russia, over thousands of soldiers and officers from weapons, equipment and technology.
May 2002 - Opening of the NATO Military Liaison Mission in Moscow
28 May 2002 d - Adoption of the Declaration of the Heads of State and Government of the Russian Federation and NATO Member States in Rome, the establishment of the Russia-NATO Council.
Following the meeting, there was an official statement by the Russian Federation and NATO that these relations received a new impetus and were filled with new content. At the meeting in Rome, the heads of state and government reached an agreement on expanding opportunities for cooperation in areas of common interest, as well as on joint resistance to common threats and security risks to their own countries, i.e. If problems arise within the Russian Federation, NATO will help.
Since 2003, research has begun on theater theater missile defense (TMD), designed to protect troops in joint action areas, in which possible levels of interoperability between Russian and NATO missile defense systems were assessed. Three command and staff exercises were also conducted in this area, the first of which took place in the United States in March 2004, the second in the Netherlands in March 2005, and the third in Russia in October 2006. In Germany, an 2008 exercise was conducted in January using computer simulation. Cooperation is actively continuing to the present.
Since 2004, a nuclear glossary has been developed by experts from the Russian Federation and NATO in the nuclear field, and exchanges of views on nuclear doctrines and strategy have been organized. Observers also took part in field exercises on responding to nuclear incidents in Russia (2004), in the UK (2005), in the United States (2006) and in France (2007), i.e. NATO is actively and closely working with the nuclear potential and missile defense of the Russian Federation.
It should be noted that another 15 February 2005g. The Government of the Russian Federation issued Resolution No. 76 “On the submission to the President of the Russian Federation of a proposal on the accession of the Russian Federation to the“ Agreement between the States Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and other States participating in the Partnership for Peace Program, on the status of their Forces and the Additional Protocol to it from 19 June 1995 g. The President, by his decree No. 89-rp of 8 in March, 2005 ordered: “First. Accept the proposal of the Government of the Russian Federation on the accession of the Russian Federation to the "Agreement ...". The second. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia should sign on behalf of the Russian Federation the "Agreement ..." ”. The presidential order was immediately executed and already 21 on April 2005. in Vilnius, it was signed by Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov on behalf of the Russian Federation at the very beginning of the unofficial meeting of the foreign ministers of the Russia-NATO Council as a “gift” for the holiday “60 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War”. As part of the Russia-NATO Council, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Lavrov, and NATO Secretary General Scheffer 21 on April 2005, signed an agreement on the status of forces of NATO countries and countries participating in the Partnership for Peace program in Vilnius.
Another additional protocol to the Partnership for Peace Agreement was signed in Sofia on April 28 of 2006. In accordance with this Protocol, each of the States Parties "to the extent that it has jurisdiction under the provisions of the Agreement does not execute the death penalty for any member of the Force or civilian and their dependents from any other State party."
In June, the 2005 of the year at a meeting of the NRC at the level of ministers of defense approved the Political-Military Guidelines to increase the level of interoperability of troops (forces) of Russia and NATO countries, i.e. justified the transition of the Russian army to NATO standards and equipping with NATO military equipment.
22 March 2007 of the year (one month after the famous Munich speech) President V. Putin continues the policy of B. Yeltsin and A. Kozyrev. He opens Russia to NATO wide open, submitting for ratification the main documents in the form of the NATO law N 99 for ratification by the State Duma and Federation Council of the Russian Federation -FZ ,: The Agreement between the States Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty and other States participating in the Partnership for Peace program on the status of their Forces from 19 June 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Agreement from 1995) was signed on behalf of the Russian Federation in Vilnius 21 April 2005 g., Additional ADDITIONAL Protocol thereto signed at Sofia April 28 2006, the
Contrary to Section 4, Article 16 of Federal Law No. 101-FZ of July 15 1995. “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation”, the President’s proposal to ratify the “Agreement ...” does not contain “justification for the ratification of its ratification”, “determination of compliance of the agreement with the legislation of the Russian Federation” and does not give an “assessment of the possible consequences of ratification of the treaty”.
It is surprising that, in accordance with the “Agreements ...”, NATO personnel are not subject to passport and visa control when entering and leaving the border of the Russian Federation, that is, you can go with weapons and military equipment in any quantity.
In general, the rights and interests of NATO are put above the interests of Russia, which directly contradicts the Constitution and the current legislation of the Russian Federation.
NATO law N 99-FZ, moreover, is very difficult to denounce. This can happen only a year after the Government of Russia only informs the US Government, and then “with the exception of settling the remaining claims submitted until the denunciation takes effect” (Article VI of the Agreement of 19 June 1995). Such claims can be invented a lot and it will last indefinitely. The military occupation of Russia is provided with this Putin law.
Since the end of year 2007, the Airspace Cooperation Initiative (CTI) has been technically commissioned. The system of ISWP consists of four objects in Russia, four objects in NATO, and includes objects located, starting from the far north of Europe in Buda (Norway) and Murmansk (Russia), up to Ankara (Turkey) and Rostov-on-Don (Russia ) in the south, the European part of the airspace of the Russian Federation comes under joint control.
9 January 2008 D. Rogozin was appointed the Permanent Representative of Russia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels by decree of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir V. Putin.
In April, 2008 at the Russia-NATO Council summit in Bucharest on the basis of a resolution of the Russian government signed an agreement on the simplified procedure for the transit of illegal cargo from ISAF to Afghanistan, and at the Russia-NATO Council summit in Lisbon in November 2010. This topic has continued.
12 February 2009. The issue of the transit of American non-military goods through Russia to Afghanistan has been finally resolved. We are talking about the decision of the Russian government to support the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan through railway transit of non-military goods, mainly humanitarian. This is the first step of Messrs. V. Putin and D. Medvedev, signaling readiness to cooperate with the new American administration of B. Obama.
23 – 24 on April 1999 at the session of the North Atlantic Council in Washington by the heads of state and government was adopted by the “Strategic Concept of the Alliance”.
November The third summit in the history of the Russia-NATO Council was held in Lisbon with the participation of President V. Putin in Lisbon. The “Strategic Concept of the Alliance” was developed, the topic of cargo transit was continued, the result was bilateral agreements on air transit of arms, military equipment and personnel with Germany, France, Spain, the USA, Italy and Sweden.
The final document explains the nuances of the words “possessing weapons” used in Article VI of the Agreement, the Russian Federation on the basis of reciprocity will understand the use and use of weapons, and the words “supportively consider the requests of the receiving state” means that the authorities of the sending state take into account the requirements of the receiving state regarding carrying, transporting, transporting, using and using weapons, including on the territory of the Russian Federation. The joint statement following the meeting unleashed NATO’s hands even more: “We reaffirmed all the goals, principles and commitments contained in the Founding Act, the Rome Declaration and the Charter for OSCE European Security 1999 of the Year, including the“ Security Platform based on cooperation ”, and recognized that the security of all states in the Euro-Atlantic community is indivisible, as well as the fact that the security of NATO and Russia is interconnected (that is, you can already intervene in Russia). We will work towards achieving a truly strategic and modernized partnership based on the principles of mutual trust, transparency and predictability, with the goal of creating a common space of peace, security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. NRC member states will refrain from threatening or using force against each other, as well as against any other state (for example Georgia), its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any form incompatible with the UN Charter and contained in the Helsinki Final Act A declaration of principles by which member states will be guided in mutual relations. "
A special section of the final document is devoted to crisis management.
NATO adheres to a holistic approach to crisis management, involving the organization’s participation at all stages of the crisis, "therefore NATO will act where it is possible and necessary to prevent crises, regulate them (using force, including in the Russian Federation), stabilize post-conflict situations and support recovery. ” NATO calls for an increase in the number of structures and organizations involved in this work and coordinating their efforts; At the same time, it is considering the possibility of using a wider set of tools, which will make it possible to achieve greater efficiency across the entire spectrum of crisis management.
A mechanism has been created that has been used, for example, by Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia during the Kosovo crisis. This mechanism can also be used by our leaders in the event of a threat to their power or if it is necessary to consolidate the disintegration of the Russian Federation, as happened with the USSR.
In May 2011g. The NATO leadership has asked Russia to consider the possibility of distributing the simplified transit of non-lethal ISAF goods to and from Afghanistan in a combined way, that is, by rail, road and air. Immediately it was the Russian Federation that worked out the technical possibilities for implementing such a transit scheme using the Eastern Ulyanovsk airport, a strip of which five kilometers long was built for the Soviet space program Buran, but already with weapons and military equipment.
Currently, NATO cooperation Russia is conducted on an ongoing basis. As necessary, meetings of the Russia-NATO Council are held at the level of heads of state and government, twice a year at the level of foreign ministers and defense ministers (chaired by the NATO Secretary General), at least once a month at ambassadorial level. Also under the auspices of the Council, meetings are held between the chiefs of general staffs (twice a year) and military representatives (monthly).
There are 22 working bodies of the Russia-NATO Council on specific issues or areas of cooperation:
4 Committee: Preparatory Committee, Military Preparatory Committee, Scientific Committee, Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society);
4 Working groups: on issues of the defense industry, science and technology, restructuring and reforming the defense industry complex; on peacemaking; on the implementation of the Airspace Cooperation Initiative; over the rear;
5 Special Working Groups: on the terrorist threat in the Euro-Atlantic region, on the non-proliferation of WMD, on military reforms, on emergency civil planning, on cooperation in the field of missile defense of the theater of operations; and 9 expert groups: on arms control and confidence-building measures, on nuclear safety issues, on military transport aviation, on air refueling, on defense issues, on explosives detection, on cybersecurity on the vulnerability of transport infrastructure.
I would like to remind V. Putin and D. Medvedev that during the period of this “fruitful” Russia-NATO cooperation, NATO launched four full-scale wars in violation of international law against Yugoslavia and Iraq, as well as against Libya and Afghanistan. US left 50000 people in Iraq and 30000 left in Afghanistan. Armed and prepared Georgia for the war against Russia in 2008, and now it has again restored the Georgian military potential to a new war, provided assistance to the Chechen resistance, deployed missile defense in Europe against the Russian Federation (after such cooperation, we can not reckon with the Russian Federation).
A start has been made, and Russia, playing by the rules of NATO, is doing everything so that such a network appears on its territory through the NATO exit - Ulyanovsk, alongside the troubled Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. This is only the first bridgehead. Afghan transit is about to work. All these actions by the leaders of Russia contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the law “On Defense” (which specifies the “integrity and inviolability of the territory of the Russian Federation”), the Military Doctrine and the National Security Concept, but so far no one has tried to protest them at the official level. Therefore, it was not for nothing that the former Secretary of State, M. Albright, in continuation of such “cooperation”, declared in 2005 year that owning Siberia in one country is too much.
Another US foreign policy architect, the former head of the State Department, Henry Kissinger in 2011, supplemented it with a curious statement. "We allowed China to increase its military potential, gave Russia time to recover after Sovietization, gave them a false sense of superiority, but together all this will speed up their destruction. A war is coming, it will be so serious that only one superpower can win it." And it will be the United States. ”According to his forecasts, the new global war will turn most of the world into ruins, and from this ashes, the US will build a new society, and only one superpower will remain in it. And it will be a global government that wins.“ United States We have the best weapons that no other nation has, and we will show these weapons to the world when the right time comes, "he concluded. Often everything that G. Kissinger says comes true. The network created by the US and NATO will be the hands of the Russian authorities The basis for the implementation of these plans.7my 2012 of the year V.Putin took office as president of Russia immediately announced a strategic partnership with the United States, that is, with NATO too, the partnership policy continues.
Unfortunately, the results of this partnership, which are still unknown and unpredictable for us (based on today's relations between Russia and the United States), again bring to mind the traitorous activities of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. It was their illiterate and lackey policy in relations with the West that initiated all the problems in the international political space that today have to clear up the current government. How wise and resistant will our leaders be in respecting the interests of our country and its people with clearly not friendly actions of foreign “friends and partners”? How much do they have the restraint, will, and just the desire to save our people and our country from total destruction, linking our own army hands and depriving our military of all the opportunities to fulfill our duty to protect the Motherland, to ensure the safety of all of us, citizens of Russia? Will our power be able to stop the mechanism launched by their predecessors and prevent Kissinger’s prediction from coming true? Shows time, and will show very soon.