Rogozin: Russia asks not to park a NATO tank at its entrance

Rogozin: Russia asks not to park a NATO tank at its entrance

Russia is negotiating on the diplomatic, political and military lines to bring its concerns to the US and NATO over the deployment of European missile defense, but if the “point of no return” is passed, Moscow will have to give an adequate military-technical response to this challenge, said on Tuesday Russia's Permanent Representative to NATO Dmitry Rogozin.


“We pay attention to the fact that there are certain limits for everything and there is a definite red line, there is a point of no return at these negotiations. When these plans are already being implemented in the metal, when all legally binding agreements within NATO regarding the deployment of this system will be made, and Russian objective concerns will be ignored, then diplomats will be able to assume that their work is finished, ”Rogozin said yesterday meeting of the NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Interfax reports.

Then, he explained, "the scientists will start the work, who will have to create such opportunities for the Russian Federation, which, in turn, will allow it to neglect any attempts to nullify its strategic balance."

“This neglect should be associated with a possible military-technical response, which has been repeatedly mentioned by the political and military leadership of Russia. We directly warn our partners about this and draw their attention to the fact that the meter has long been turned on, very little time remains, ”Rogozin warned.

He stressed that the military-technical response would be a forced step for Russia.

“We are not the project initiators. We didn’t create such a time pressure situation in the negotiations, and if our American colleagues in NATO didn’t take the necessary actions in the remaining time that would give Russia a real sense of their own security, the situation would develop according to a scenario that would be undesirable for all of us. At least in the part that affects the Lisbon agreement on missile defense. They will remain only on paper, ”the permanent representative said.

He was not surprised, however, by NATO’s intentions to announce at the Chicago summit in 2012 about the interim readiness of the European missile defense system. “We have long said that EuroPRO architects act regardless of what scientists are saying on this issue, which is said by Moscow, which categorically objects to certain aspects of the development of this program, especially at the third or fourth stage,” the permanent representative explained.

“These plans are being implemented in full in the time frame that has already been developed at the Pentagon, despite the fact that among the Europeans themselves there are a lot of questions to the final look of the European missile defense system. Therefore, the role of NATO defense ministers here is more reminiscent of the role of extras, invited to provide voting and applause for the design, which is urgently constructed by American "Proshniki", - he said.

According to him, this is all done “without regard to Moscow.” “And in vain, because if we are not considered in determining the final contour of this system, then we ask you not to be offended if they may not like our answer,” Rogozin said.

“We simply ask not to park the NATO tank at our entrance. This is the only thing we ask. For this, there are special boxes at military bases, ”said the head of the Russian mission to NATO.

“In other words: there are certain configurations of missile defense, primarily in northern Europe, including those related to the refusal of the United States to limit its deployment fleet in the northern seas, as well as in the Black Sea, which cannot be accepted by the Russian Federation under any circumstances. And even paper certifications in this regard do not work, because we need an invoice. The texture is the logical limitations of this system, which should bring it in line with real or future missile risks coming from the southern direction, ”the permanent representative noted.

He pointed out that the meeting of NATO defense ministers of NATO member states 5 – 6 in October “essentially does not imply serious discussions on the first or second phases of the US plan to deploy missile defense infrastructure”.

“And this is for the simple reason that Europeans generally behave somewhat maladly in this direction, preferring to give Americans absolute freedom of hands and not paying attention to the alarming signals that even the Western expert community is already giving on this issue, claiming that the infrastructure is more like a means of attack than a means of defense, ”the Russian diplomat said.

Vitaly Ivanov, political scientist:

- NATO will never make concessions to Russia. After all, who of their own free will will go to the deterioration of their positions? But to try to put forward initiatives to strengthen the role of Russia in the Council is, of course, necessary. A drop wears away a stone, and it is necessary to regularly persevere in this matter, to wag nerves, otherwise we will not achieve any equality.

We will most likely be able to get some concession on the issue of interest to us. They will say: “Nate, choke!”. But even such a submission for us will undoubtedly be important. This is normal diplomatic practice.

Remember the slogan of the Parisian factions, who rebelled against Charles de Gaulle: "Be realistic, demand the impossible!" And also: "Ask out of the blue - get as much as you need." So, the more questions you ask, the more likely it is that Russia will get answers and concessions from NATO.

To talk with NATO on an equal footing, you need to have a military-political potential comparable to the military-political potential of the bloc. And now we have the potentials, despite the existence of a serious weapons, still not the same.

NATO viewed and treats us as enemies. But what would theoretically be the most suited for NATO (our complete disarmament and the renunciation of nuclear weapons), the alliance does not see even in their wildest dreams, knowing that we will not accept this.

Now the conversation is about the countries of the alliance to stop us being considered opponents and treat us at least as potential allies. But for now this is a purely theoretical conversation. As for tactical situational improvements, concessions and mutual agreements, all this was and will be in any case, regardless of whether we are allies or enemies. Another thing is that it is not necessary to treat the alliance too trustingly. We remember very well how we were “thrown” with the expansion of NATO to the east, and this lesson must always be remembered when making any decisions on interaction with NATO and the spheres of NATO. It is impossible to believe in the countries of the alliance, they can “throw” easily, which they did more than once. So without thinking, they will do it again.

Russia and NATO are potential adversaries who do not want to become enemies, therefore they are engaged in a dialogue between themselves. The dialogue is kind of forced, based on mutual distrust, but in this situation there can be nothing else.

Alexander Khramchikhin, head of the analytical department of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis:

- Equality in decision-making within the Russia-NATO Council will be possible only if Russia has one vote, and one - from NATO. Now every member of NATO in this Council has a separate vote. We, as a non-NATO country, cannot now impose our own rules on the alliance, and it would be strange to expect the opposite.

In my opinion, this Council is not needed by any of its members. And no practical issues are solved at its meetings anyway. At the same time, NATO will not make concessions, which I mentioned above.

However, progress in the relationship is still possible. Moreover, progress is possible in any questions.

As for the problem of evroPRO, in my opinion, it does not exist, it was invented and inflated. She is bloated to a completely abnormal degree, although she is nothing. At least, in no way does it affect Russia's security issues. The problem of trust remains a key issue in relations between Russia and NATO. But working on an absolutely fictitious problem, which is missile defense, is unlikely to contribute to building trust between Council members. Of course, I repeat, everything is possible, but since all this missile defense system is a grandiose fiction aimed at solving specific American tasks, it is unlikely that we will achieve trust precisely because we have nothing to do with it.

The development of trust between Russia and NATO is also not conducive to the teachings that Dmitry Rogozin praised. Joint military exercises are held for a long time, but at the same time they make little difference. After all, all these teachings are decorative, they work out "herbivorous" scenarios for helping humanitarian or natural disasters. But what all this has to do with the armed forces - I do not understand.

In fact, Russia and NATO, both sides need to get rid of psychological complexes. This will certainly contribute to the growth of confidence, but none of the parties is going to deal with these complexes. On the contrary, both sides incite these complexes in themselves with new force again and again. The problem of missile defense is just one of the manifestations of this phenomenon. The complex pathological fear of each other - the most dangerous. Russia always sees a threat from NATO, although it is clear that this threat does not exist. Similarly, the eastern part of NATO sees a direct military threat from Russia, although it is also clear that this is not the case. Until the parties overcome these complexes, there will be no trust.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. LESHA pancake
    LESHA pancake 5 October 2011 14: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    LAVROV US WEAR NOODLES IS WEIGHED BY NATO HAS SUCCESSFULLY UNCHARGED A FEW WARS IN THE 21ST CENTURY. And Nothing Prevents NATO from PREPARING WAR AGAINST RUSSIA.
    1. zczczc
      zczczc 6 October 2011 04: 38 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      By the way, Spain has just been connected to missile defense.
      Soon it will be “unfashionable” for any Western country not to have a NATO missile defense.
  2. ytqnhfk
    ytqnhfk 5 October 2011 15: 12 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Khramchin with “uk” and Amerovskaya- “there is no threat!” Yes there is, why are they creating it (EUROPRO) against what, which country? "lucky !! ears flood his blind ram which he has in his head !!!!
    1. Ivan35
      Ivan35 5 October 2011 18: 36 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Ytqnhfk totally agree with you! Khramchikhin is constantly escalating tensions in relations between Russia and China - which is beneficial for pendos and we do not need now - (maybe later - in the future - but for now, China is not taking hostile actions)
      On the other hand, he convinces of the absence of a threat from NATO and pendosov (although we all know who had a hand in the collapse of our country, who bombed the Serbs, who interfered in our internal affairs - paid anti-Soviet terrorists in the Caucasus, the Taliban in Afghanistan fell upon us and t d and tp - they have the blood of our people on their hands)

      Although Euro PRo has not yet managed to become a threat - but if our state plays this card, then we must support it - if you are a citizen -
      And if you are a temple-goer, then you’d better buy a ticket to the pendostan right away — otherwise you will end badly — if ours come to power, then he will be where it is needed — they put such people in the USSR too -
  3. Motherland
    Motherland 5 October 2011 15: 25 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Yes, Europe without the USA doesn’t even have a threat from them ... but if the USA connects, we will already have small problems, but Russia cannot be defeated by force "who comes to us with a sword with the same sword will crawl away in the ass"
    1. KASKAD
      KASKAD 5 October 2011 18: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      So, for information, NATO without the USA surpasses us in the number of aircraft tanks, fleet carrier formations and manpower by 2 and sometimes by 3 times, and once again this is only
      European NATO countries without the United States.
      1. Motherland
        Motherland 5 October 2011 18: 18 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        against NATO forces, we have 1 soldiers per 1,5st fighter, 2,5-3 against the United States. Yes, and now and in the future it is unlikely that there will be a scale like in the 2nd world now it goes into local conflicts or the destruction of the enemy’s country by the revolution ". I don’t really believe that the regular army will survive, but against the guerrilla war, whatever the army is, it will be almost impossible to resist.
        1. KASKAD
          KASKAD 5 October 2011 18: 27 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Nevertheless, by 2012, ships and ships with Aegis would close all strategic facilities of Russia, but by the way the May calendar ends at the same time, there are more and more matches, since on June 21, 1941 no one believed that Hitler would attack the USSR.
          1. Motherland
            Motherland 5 October 2011 18: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, I don’t really believe in Maya. Strategic objects are always the first to beat. But the war will most likely not be in the spirit of the Second World War, but a lot of local conflicts. "The truth dies in the first war, and the media will say that we attacked the whole world ... And if you look at the May calendar, the most logical chain is war — nuclear weapons — the end of the world, but the United States is a dumb ethnic group, but not so much to ruin so many resources, so I think they won’t accept nuclear weapons, it can only be done locally.
  4. Volkhov
    Volkhov 5 October 2011 16: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Rogozin wants to say that if they put another anti-aircraft gun, the Russian Federation will bomb their money in the United States and elite children in Cambridge and Harvard? Do airplanes paint in NATO color to get closer? And whose IL-76 was shot down from 200 wounded in southern Libya?
    Maybe the elite has long been with NATO, and for the rest of Russia, which they consider cattle, fairy tales tell?
  5. Motherland
    Motherland 5 October 2011 17: 03 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Of course, our government is clearly not on the side of the people, and while they are in power, there is no point in fighting, because they will not allow the country to develop
  6. APASUS 5 October 2011 19: 11 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    All foreign policy, around the world, is built on an adequate answer. And until our country adequately allocates its weapons in accordance with threats, the West will not listen to our opinion! First, it’s important to announce through the press that American missile defense bases in Romania to the priority list of our Strategic Missile Forces. Europeans should know what problems they may have at the request of friends from the USA!
    1. Pole 5 October 2011 19: 54 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Absolutely agree! If it is hard to warn that, in the event of an attack and the threat of an attack on the Russian Federation, missile defense systems in Europe will be the target of our tactical missiles, then everyone would have no desire to deploy!
      But we can’t say! This is "unconstructive"!
      They just can’t even say it !!!
      And pendosy already embody their missile defense in hardware ....
  7. figwam 5 October 2011 20: 48 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It is necessary to create tactical missiles with a range of 1 thousand km, then it will be possible to destroy missile defense systems anywhere in Europe.
    1. kosmos84 5 October 2011 21: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      absolutely right! there are any developments from Soviet cancer programs
    2. Ivan Tarasov 5 October 2011 23: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Absolutely right.
      And not only ballistic, but also cruise missiles made using the STELS technology (radius from 1t to 3t. Km, depending on the warhead).
      In the future, it is extremely important to create a new carrier of the Kyrgyz Republic - the STELS strategic bomber.
  8. Kenny2301
    Kenny2301 5 October 2011 21: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In short, there is such a feeling that all of us will soon have a khan ... personally, I’m a little tired of these skirmishes about missile defense and all sorts of other x% yni ... well oh well, if everything goes according to a bad scenario, then here’s an option that could be ...
    1) The goals of nuclear strikes in Russia
    1.Moscow
    2.Saint Petersburg
    3. Yekaterinburg
    4.Murmansk.

    2) US nuclear strike targets (with nuclear submarines)
    1.Washington
    2.New York
    3.Colorado

    3) More unpleasant crap is the invasion of NATO forces from the west, and China from the Southeast to Siberia and the Far East.

    Z.Y. no matter how pleasant it all is, I agree with the phrase from the first comment "who comes to us with a sword with the same sword will crawl away in the ass"
    1. Ivan Tarasov 5 October 2011 23: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The objectives of the attacks are not cities (no one will spend the warhead on the destruction of residential areas, restaurants and boutiques), but the infrastructure is military and industrial.
      First, the Tomahawks fly, extinguish missile defense, and then strike an ICBM.
  9. Konstantm 5 October 2011 22: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Si vis pacem, para bellum (Russian “if you want peace, prepare for war”) is a Latin phrase attributed to the Roman historian Cornelius Nepot (94-24 BC) (a biography of the Theban commander of the XNUMXth century BC Epaminondas).

    A similar phrase wording belongs to the Roman war writer Flavius ​​Vegetius: [1]

    "Summary of military affairs." Book III. V century:

    Thus, whoever wants peace, let him prepare for war; who wants victory, let him carefully train the soldiers; whoever wants a favorable result, let him wage war, relying on art and knowledge, and not on chance. No one dares to invoke and insult someone he knows that in battle he will be stronger than him.

    Wikipedia.
  10. Vadivak 5 October 2011 22: 35 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, let's answer the Roman war writer with the words of the furniture minister

    - Who's the boss? You? Dismiss on ... this boss! Temple to demolish! Do not give money to the center! (Visit of Anatoly Serdyukov to the Ryazan branch of the Combined Arms Academy of the RF Armed Forces)
  11. Alexei 6 October 2011 04: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I once read a little novel written by a former military man (I don’t remember my last name). I remember the essay that Soviet submarines floated off the coast of many countries (this is a fact), not just for reconnaissance purposes, but discarding mechanisms that burrow themselves These mechanisms at the start provoke an earthquake, followed by a tsunami. But the point of this venture is not to destroy it directly, but to pat it, after which they will move to this country with a rescue mission, with field kitchens, etc. And thereby defuse the antideplastic atmosphere between the countries. Well, for example, let’s say Japan — a click on a button and a wave of Japanese mother. Send our rescuers there. And the attitude will stabilize for a while.
    Fantasy is sick of course, but it is not without meaning.
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 6 October 2011 19: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Retired security officers continue to rave - seismograms are different for artificial explosions and natural ones. To do this, you need to transfer all the leadership of the world to your morons - but then why blow it up?