7 New Messages
Digest #4555
Messages
Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:19 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_11
Voice of Russia
November 23, 2012
Wars for resources assume epidemic proportions
Ilya Kharlamov
A civil war in Congo may cause big problems for millions of cell phone and computer users across the globe.
Congo is the world’s third largest producer of tantalum used in high-tech electronics. Even a temporary supply shortage may deal a serious blow to the electronics industry with far-reaching consequences for other branches. The situation in Congo is just one example of how regional conflicts may affect the lives of millions of people on other continents.
Although sparked by a tribal and clan feud, the ongoing bloodshed in that Central African country is actually a war for mineral resources. This week, the rebels seized Goma, the biggest city in the mineral-reach eastern part of Congo, and are poised to fight on with government troops and UN forces unable, so far, to check their advance. The rebels, who call themselves the March 23 Movement, or M23, are widely believed to enjoy clandestine support from neighboring Rwanda and Uganda struggling for access to Congo’s mineral wealth.
Congo has vast and largely untapped reserves of oil, gold, diamonds, copper, uranium, cobalt and other minerals, including tantalum – a rare-earth metal used in the nuclear power industry, mobile phones, computers, digital cameras and other high-tech products. With demand for tantalum growing faster than supply, fueled by rapidly-developing high-tech branches, tantalum is becoming more profitable than gold or diamonds. For Congo’s poor neighbors, control over tantalum deposits could mean a chance for an economic breakthrough and higher living standards. And although producers have stockpiled sufficient quantities of tantalum, the situation is very alarming and prompting scientists to look for alternatives.
Analysts draw parallels with Serbia and the Balkan conflict. A Western project for the independence of Kosovo intended not only to punish the disobedient Serbia, but also to strip it of a vast portion of mineral reserves – coal, gold, platinum, bauxites, zinc, nickel and cobalt – estimated at dozens of millions of tons. Cobalt, for example, is a key element in renewable energy production.
The recent bloody war in Sudan is seen by some experts as a battlefield between Beijing and Washington. China has invested and continues to invest billions of dollars in Africa and made it a priority of its foreign policy. As a result of the war, Sudan split into two separate states – Sudan and South Sudan. Last year, the oil-rich South Sudan acquired independence with the active assistance of the United States. But the Sudanese oil, though extracted in the south, cannot be transported other than through the north, which makes oil transit an essential issue with many lances broken over it already.
As the global population grows at a rate of tens of millions per year, the task of providing it with energy and staple goods is becoming a top priority. While for many countries, control over mineral resources is actually a matter of surviving, for elites it’s an opportunity to enrich themselves uncontrollably. Wars for resources may assume epidemic proportions.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Voice of Russia
November 23, 2012
Wars for resources assume epidemic proportions
Ilya Kharlamov
A civil war in Congo may cause big problems for millions of cell phone and computer users across the globe.
Congo is the world’s third largest producer of tantalum used in high-tech electronics. Even a temporary supply shortage may deal a serious blow to the electronics industry with far-reaching consequences for other branches. The situation in Congo is just one example of how regional conflicts may affect the lives of millions of people on other continents.
Although sparked by a tribal and clan feud, the ongoing bloodshed in that Central African country is actually a war for mineral resources. This week, the rebels seized Goma, the biggest city in the mineral-reach eastern part of Congo, and are poised to fight on with government troops and UN forces unable, so far, to check their advance. The rebels, who call themselves the March 23 Movement, or M23, are widely believed to enjoy clandestine support from neighboring Rwanda and Uganda struggling for access to Congo’s mineral wealth.
Congo has vast and largely untapped reserves of oil, gold, diamonds, copper, uranium, cobalt and other minerals, including tantalum – a rare-earth metal used in the nuclear power industry, mobile phones, computers, digital cameras and other high-tech products. With demand for tantalum growing faster than supply, fueled by rapidly-developing high-tech branches, tantalum is becoming more profitable than gold or diamonds. For Congo’s poor neighbors, control over tantalum deposits could mean a chance for an economic breakthrough and higher living standards. And although producers have stockpiled sufficient quantities of tantalum, the situation is very alarming and prompting scientists to look for alternatives.
Analysts draw parallels with Serbia and the Balkan conflict. A Western project for the independence of Kosovo intended not only to punish the disobedient Serbia, but also to strip it of a vast portion of mineral reserves – coal, gold, platinum, bauxites, zinc, nickel and cobalt – estimated at dozens of millions of tons. Cobalt, for example, is a key element in renewable energy production.
The recent bloody war in Sudan is seen by some experts as a battlefield between Beijing and Washington. China has invested and continues to invest billions of dollars in Africa and made it a priority of its foreign policy. As a result of the war, Sudan split into two separate states – Sudan and South Sudan. Last year, the oil-rich South Sudan acquired independence with the active assistance of the United States. But the Sudanese oil, though extracted in the south, cannot be transported other than through the north, which makes oil transit an essential issue with many lances broken over it already.
As the global population grows at a rate of tens of millions per year, the task of providing it with energy and staple goods is becoming a top priority. While for many countries, control over mineral resources is actually a matter of surviving, for elites it’s an opportunity to enrich themselves uncontrollably. Wars for resources may assume epidemic proportions.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Nov 23, 2012 6:19 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.itar-tass.com/en/
Itar-Tass
November 23, 2012
Warships of Russian Black Sea Fleet are ordered to stay in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea
MOSCOW: Fulfilling orders, a convoy of warships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet arrived in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea for a possible evacuation of Russian citizens from the Gaza Strip in case of an escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli armed conflict, a source in the High Command of the Russian Navy told Itar-Tass on Friday.
“The guards missile-carrying cruiser Moskva and the big landing ship Saratov have arrived in the designated area already on November 20, the border patrol ship Smetlivy and the big landing ship Novocherkassk joined the foresaid warships 1-2 days later, after the refuelling from the big sea tanker Ivan Bubnov. The full convoy of the warships of the Black Sea Fleet arrived in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea in order to evacuate Russian citizens from the Gaza Strip in case of escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” the Russian naval source said.
“It is not ruled out that our warships will be assigned for another combat mission in case of deterioration of the regional situation,” the source in the High Command of the Russian Navy told Itar-Tass. However, the source did not specify what mission in concrete can be set for Russian warships.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Itar-Tass
November 23, 2012
Warships of Russian Black Sea Fleet are ordered to stay in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea
MOSCOW: Fulfilling orders, a convoy of warships of the Russian Black Sea Fleet arrived in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea for a possible evacuation of Russian citizens from the Gaza Strip in case of an escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli armed conflict, a source in the High Command of the Russian Navy told Itar-Tass on Friday.
“The guards missile-carrying cruiser Moskva and the big landing ship Saratov have arrived in the designated area already on November 20, the border patrol ship Smetlivy and the big landing ship Novocherkassk joined the foresaid warships 1-2 days later, after the refuelling from the big sea tanker Ivan Bubnov. The full convoy of the warships of the Black Sea Fleet arrived in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea in order to evacuate Russian citizens from the Gaza Strip in case of escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” the Russian naval source said.
“It is not ruled out that our warships will be assigned for another combat mission in case of deterioration of the regional situation,” the source in the High Command of the Russian Navy told Itar-Tass. However, the source did not specify what mission in concrete can be set for Russian warships.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:51 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.dw.de/whos-next-to-
Deutsche Welle
November 22, 2012
Who's next to join the NATO alliance?
NATO by now includes nearly every European nation. Ten years since the last major expansion, four more countries in line to join. Russia, however, remains critical of the alliance's continued expansion.
Ten years ago, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) agreed to accept seven central and eastern European countries and in 2004 those new members officially joined the alliance. At the 2002 summit in Prague then-NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson pointed out that the new expansion was not to be understood as being directed against Russia or any other country.
"NATO has never been an exclusive organization" he said. "From 12 original countries, we've enlarged successively to 14, then to 15, to 16 and then in 1990 to 19. And NATO's door is still open."
In 1999, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were the first three former Warsaw Pact members to join the alliance. By then, the Warsaw Pact had, like its leader the Soviet Union, disappeared. "Back in the early 1990s we would never have dreamed of one day becoming a NATO member," Estonian Prime Minister Siim Kallas said at the Prague summit a decade ago.
The door remains open
Rasmussen said NATO's door remains open The 2008 summit in Bucharest once again confirmed what Robertson had said in 2002 - that NATO's door remained open. Only a few days ago, current Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said during a meeting with new Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili in Brussels that back in 2008, the alliance had agreed to offer NATO membership also to Georgia and Ukraine.
Newly elected Ivanishvili said Georgia would do everything required for...Russia and Georgia fought a brief war four years ago over a rebel province seeking independence from Tbilisi.
No say for Russia
Russia has been critical of all NATO expansion since 1990...
Russia does not have an actual say in that matter [NATO expansion to its border], said German parliamentarian Karl Lamers, currently president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
"The relationship between NATO and Russia is marked by dialogue and transparency, but Russia does not co-determine policy. Quite on the contrary: We've seen in the past that Russia has again and again complained against the expansion. I'm thinking in particular about Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania," Lamers told DW, adding that Russia's objections did not halt the alliance's expansion.
...
Ukraine no longer interested
In 2008, Ukraine was ambitious to join at some point. But since the election of pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych, the country has dropped its membership ambitions.
"Under the current president there's no perspective for joining NATO," Lamers explained.
But close cooperation would continue, Rasmussen said at the most recent official meeting with the Ukrainian government in spring 2012. Ukraine is, for instance, part of NATO led missions like the one in Afghanistan.
Three Balkan candidates
In spring 2009, Croatia and Albania had joined - long before a possible EU membership. The criteria for NATO are less strict than for the European Union, but prospective members do have to be stable democracies and have a civilian control over their military. Also, their military forces have to be somewhat on the level with standards of the alliance. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Macedonia are currently working towards achieving those standards. When exactly they will join though remains unclear.
...
Macedonia has fulfilled the requirements for years. But as NATO member Greece objects to Macedonia's name - as Greece has a province of the same name - and Athens has blocked membership for the former Yugoslav republic.
Ties to Serbia
Kosovo still has NATO troops stationed on it's territory In 1999, NATO fought a war against Serbia...Relations between Belgrade and NATO are therefore still somewhat cool.
...
NATO also does not accept any members who would bring unresolved territorial disputes into the alliance. That means that first of all, Serbia would have to normalize its ties with Kosovo. Currently, Belgrade does not yet recognize Pristina's independence and there still are NATO-led troops stationed in Kosovo.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Deutsche Welle
November 22, 2012
Who's next to join the NATO alliance?
NATO by now includes nearly every European nation. Ten years since the last major expansion, four more countries in line to join. Russia, however, remains critical of the alliance's continued expansion.
Ten years ago, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) agreed to accept seven central and eastern European countries and in 2004 those new members officially joined the alliance. At the 2002 summit in Prague then-NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson pointed out that the new expansion was not to be understood as being directed against Russia or any other country.
"NATO has never been an exclusive organization" he said. "From 12 original countries, we've enlarged successively to 14, then to 15, to 16 and then in 1990 to 19. And NATO's door is still open."
In 1999, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were the first three former Warsaw Pact members to join the alliance. By then, the Warsaw Pact had, like its leader the Soviet Union, disappeared. "Back in the early 1990s we would never have dreamed of one day becoming a NATO member," Estonian Prime Minister Siim Kallas said at the Prague summit a decade ago.
The door remains open
Rasmussen said NATO's door remains open The 2008 summit in Bucharest once again confirmed what Robertson had said in 2002 - that NATO's door remained open. Only a few days ago, current Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said during a meeting with new Georgian Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili in Brussels that back in 2008, the alliance had agreed to offer NATO membership also to Georgia and Ukraine.
Newly elected Ivanishvili said Georgia would do everything required for...Russia and Georgia fought a brief war four years ago over a rebel province seeking independence from Tbilisi.
No say for Russia
Russia has been critical of all NATO expansion since 1990...
Russia does not have an actual say in that matter [NATO expansion to its border], said German parliamentarian Karl Lamers, currently president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
"The relationship between NATO and Russia is marked by dialogue and transparency, but Russia does not co-determine policy. Quite on the contrary: We've seen in the past that Russia has again and again complained against the expansion. I'm thinking in particular about Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania," Lamers told DW, adding that Russia's objections did not halt the alliance's expansion.
...
Ukraine no longer interested
In 2008, Ukraine was ambitious to join at some point. But since the election of pro-Russian Victor Yanukovych, the country has dropped its membership ambitions.
"Under the current president there's no perspective for joining NATO," Lamers explained.
But close cooperation would continue, Rasmussen said at the most recent official meeting with the Ukrainian government in spring 2012. Ukraine is, for instance, part of NATO led missions like the one in Afghanistan.
Three Balkan candidates
In spring 2009, Croatia and Albania had joined - long before a possible EU membership. The criteria for NATO are less strict than for the European Union, but prospective members do have to be stable democracies and have a civilian control over their military. Also, their military forces have to be somewhat on the level with standards of the alliance. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Macedonia are currently working towards achieving those standards. When exactly they will join though remains unclear.
...
Macedonia has fulfilled the requirements for years. But as NATO member Greece objects to Macedonia's name - as Greece has a province of the same name - and Athens has blocked membership for the former Yugoslav republic.
Ties to Serbia
Kosovo still has NATO troops stationed on it's territory In 1999, NATO fought a war against Serbia...Relations between Belgrade and NATO are therefore still somewhat cool.
...
NATO also does not accept any members who would bring unresolved territorial disputes into the alliance. That means that first of all, Serbia would have to normalize its ties with Kosovo. Currently, Belgrade does not yet recognize Pristina's independence and there still are NATO-led troops stationed in Kosovo.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:51 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.interfax.com/
Interfax
November 23, 2012
Lavrov reiterates Russia's concerns about Turkey plans to deploy Patriot missiles
MOSCOW: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov once again iterated Russia's concerns about plans to deploy Patriot missile systems at the Turkish-Syrian border in a telephone conversation with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
"Anders Fogh Rasmussen informed [Lavrov] about the situation related to Turkey's request that NATO deploy Patriot air defense missiles on its territory. Lavrov reiterated Russia's concerns about the plans to step up the military potential in the region and the proposal on establishing a direct communication line between Ankara and Damascus to avoid incidents," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement it published on its website following the conversation.
The parties also discussed preparations for a ministerial meeting of the NATO-Russia Council planned for December 4 in Brussels, it said.
------------------------------
http://en.rian.ru/world/201211
Russian Information Agency Novosti
November 23, 2012
Russia Reiterates Concern Over NATO Missiles in Turkey
MOSCOW: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated on Friday Moscow’s concern over the possible deployment of US Patriot air defense systems in Turkey.
Turkey, a NATO member, has requested the deployment of Patriot missiles on its territory, saying the missile system is necessary to protect its 900-km border with conflict-torn Syria.
“Sergei Lavrov has reiterated Russia’s concern over [NATO] plans to boost its military capability in the region, and reaffirmed the need for direct dialogue between Ankara and Damascus in order to avoid incidents,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said following a phone conversation between Lavrov and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Rasmussen, who earlier stated that the deployment of Patriot missiles would “contribute to the de-escalation of the crisis along NATO’s south-eastern border,” reassured Lavrov that the missiles would be placed for defensive purposes only.
US Patriot surface-to-air missiles were last deployed to Turkey in 1991 and 2003, during the two Gulf Wars, to protect the country from Saddam Hussein’s Scud missiles.
....
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Interfax
November 23, 2012
Lavrov reiterates Russia's concerns about Turkey plans to deploy Patriot missiles
MOSCOW: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov once again iterated Russia's concerns about plans to deploy Patriot missile systems at the Turkish-Syrian border in a telephone conversation with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
"Anders Fogh Rasmussen informed [Lavrov] about the situation related to Turkey's request that NATO deploy Patriot air defense missiles on its territory. Lavrov reiterated Russia's concerns about the plans to step up the military potential in the region and the proposal on establishing a direct communication line between Ankara and Damascus to avoid incidents," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement it published on its website following the conversation.
The parties also discussed preparations for a ministerial meeting of the NATO-Russia Council planned for December 4 in Brussels, it said.
------------------------------
http://en.rian.ru/world/201211
Russian Information Agency Novosti
November 23, 2012
Russia Reiterates Concern Over NATO Missiles in Turkey
MOSCOW: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated on Friday Moscow’s concern over the possible deployment of US Patriot air defense systems in Turkey.
Turkey, a NATO member, has requested the deployment of Patriot missiles on its territory, saying the missile system is necessary to protect its 900-km border with conflict-torn Syria.
“Sergei Lavrov has reiterated Russia’s concern over [NATO] plans to boost its military capability in the region, and reaffirmed the need for direct dialogue between Ankara and Damascus in order to avoid incidents,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said following a phone conversation between Lavrov and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Rasmussen, who earlier stated that the deployment of Patriot missiles would “contribute to the de-escalation of the crisis along NATO’s south-eastern border,” reassured Lavrov that the missiles would be placed for defensive purposes only.
US Patriot surface-to-air missiles were last deployed to Turkey in 1991 and 2003, during the two Gulf Wars, to protect the country from Saddam Hussein’s Scud missiles.
....
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Nov 23, 2012 12:51 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_11
Voice of Russia
November 23, 2012
NATO shows great interest in deployment of Patriot missile air-defence systems
====
Media reports even said that Berlin was ready not only to provide Patriot missile air defence systems to Turkey but also to send 120 Bundeswehr soldiers to the region. Turkey has not only moved its forces to its border with Syria but has also approved a law enabling it to bring its troops into the territory of its neighbor...
"[I]f Turkey deploys Patriot missile air defence systems on its territory, it will be able to block Syria using its own aviation in the border regions on its own territory, which may change the turn of military developments in the region. When the overthrowing of the Gaddafi regime was under way, a no-fly zone was established over Libya. Something like that may be created near the Turkish-Syrian border".
====
Plans for the deployment of Patriot missile air defence systems on the Turkish-Syrian border are defensive in character, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a telephone talk with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Earlier Moscow voiced its concern over the militarization of that region.
The above-mentioned telephone talk was held on the initiative of the NATO Secretary General. Moscow says that Rasmussen wanted to clarify the situation with the deployment of Patriot missile air defence systems on Turkish territory. Ankara filed a relevant request to NATO on November 21st. Information that appeared in the press more than once last month said that Turkey was making preparations for appealing to Brussels. Possibly, acting in this way Ankara wanted to indirectly put pressure on its NATO allies. As you know, till recently NATO was strongly against getting involved in a conflict between Turkey and Syria, a political analyst, Stanislav Tarasov, says.
"They started asking NATO to interfere in the conflict, using the Alliance’s Article No.5 – the defence of territories. Which means that they wanted to drag NATO into the conflict and thus to ensure its military presence in the region. NATO said 'No”. Then they resorted to Article No. 4 – the provision of help".
NATO said that it would consider Turkey’s request without any delay. And Germany’s Foreign Ministry said that Turkey’s request should be met without any delay.
Media reports even said that Berlin was ready not only to provide Patriot missile air defence systems to Turkey but also to send 120 Bundeswehr soldiers to the region. Turkey has not only moved its forces to its border with Syria but has also approved a law enabling it to bring its troops into the territory of its neighbor in case of a military threat.
...Any escalation of this conflict is inadmissible, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on November 23rd. Moscow is well aware of Turkey’s concern as well as of NATO’s arguments, but what is important in this case is the potential, not intentions; that is why any militarization on the Turkish-Syrian border may lead to an uncontrollable turn of events, the Russian minister said.
"Any accumulation of arms creates certain risks and encourages all those who would like like to resort to the exterior factor of force to finally use it. We believe that this will not happen, and that all outside players will display maximum responsibility in assessing the on-going developments in the region."
In diplomatic language this means that the events in Syria may start developing according to the Libyan scenario, experts say. As you know, the opposition is losing its support, and Assad has military superiority in Syria now, an Oriental studies expert, Azhdar Kurtov, says.
"The Syrian-Turkish border has a sophisticated mountain relief. Under such conditions, combat aviation is a very effective method of fighting against the rebels. Thus, if Turkey deploys Patriot missile air defence systems on its territory, it will be able to block Syria using its own aviation in the border regions on its own territory, which may change the turn of military developments in the region. When the overthrowing of the Gaddafi regime was under way, a no-fly zone was established over Libya. Something like that may be created near the Turkish-Syrian border".
Moscow’s fears may also be caused by something that is not directly linked with the crisis in Syria, a Turkish political analyst, Barysh Adybelli, says.
"Moscow believes that in case Patriot misslile air defence systems are deployed in Turkey, they can be used as one of the elements of an early warning system; that is, as one of the elements of the European missile defence system which the USA is ardently defending by now".
...
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Voice of Russia
November 23, 2012
NATO shows great interest in deployment of Patriot missile air-defence systems
====
Media reports even said that Berlin was ready not only to provide Patriot missile air defence systems to Turkey but also to send 120 Bundeswehr soldiers to the region. Turkey has not only moved its forces to its border with Syria but has also approved a law enabling it to bring its troops into the territory of its neighbor...
"[I]f Turkey deploys Patriot missile air defence systems on its territory, it will be able to block Syria using its own aviation in the border regions on its own territory, which may change the turn of military developments in the region. When the overthrowing of the Gaddafi regime was under way, a no-fly zone was established over Libya. Something like that may be created near the Turkish-Syrian border".
====
Plans for the deployment of Patriot missile air defence systems on the Turkish-Syrian border are defensive in character, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in a telephone talk with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Earlier Moscow voiced its concern over the militarization of that region.
The above-mentioned telephone talk was held on the initiative of the NATO Secretary General. Moscow says that Rasmussen wanted to clarify the situation with the deployment of Patriot missile air defence systems on Turkish territory. Ankara filed a relevant request to NATO on November 21st. Information that appeared in the press more than once last month said that Turkey was making preparations for appealing to Brussels. Possibly, acting in this way Ankara wanted to indirectly put pressure on its NATO allies. As you know, till recently NATO was strongly against getting involved in a conflict between Turkey and Syria, a political analyst, Stanislav Tarasov, says.
"They started asking NATO to interfere in the conflict, using the Alliance’s Article No.5 – the defence of territories. Which means that they wanted to drag NATO into the conflict and thus to ensure its military presence in the region. NATO said 'No”. Then they resorted to Article No. 4 – the provision of help".
NATO said that it would consider Turkey’s request without any delay. And Germany’s Foreign Ministry said that Turkey’s request should be met without any delay.
Media reports even said that Berlin was ready not only to provide Patriot missile air defence systems to Turkey but also to send 120 Bundeswehr soldiers to the region. Turkey has not only moved its forces to its border with Syria but has also approved a law enabling it to bring its troops into the territory of its neighbor in case of a military threat.
...Any escalation of this conflict is inadmissible, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on November 23rd. Moscow is well aware of Turkey’s concern as well as of NATO’s arguments, but what is important in this case is the potential, not intentions; that is why any militarization on the Turkish-Syrian border may lead to an uncontrollable turn of events, the Russian minister said.
"Any accumulation of arms creates certain risks and encourages all those who would like like to resort to the exterior factor of force to finally use it. We believe that this will not happen, and that all outside players will display maximum responsibility in assessing the on-going developments in the region."
In diplomatic language this means that the events in Syria may start developing according to the Libyan scenario, experts say. As you know, the opposition is losing its support, and Assad has military superiority in Syria now, an Oriental studies expert, Azhdar Kurtov, says.
"The Syrian-Turkish border has a sophisticated mountain relief. Under such conditions, combat aviation is a very effective method of fighting against the rebels. Thus, if Turkey deploys Patriot missile air defence systems on its territory, it will be able to block Syria using its own aviation in the border regions on its own territory, which may change the turn of military developments in the region. When the overthrowing of the Gaddafi regime was under way, a no-fly zone was established over Libya. Something like that may be created near the Turkish-Syrian border".
Moscow’s fears may also be caused by something that is not directly linked with the crisis in Syria, a Turkish political analyst, Barysh Adybelli, says.
"Moscow believes that in case Patriot misslile air defence systems are deployed in Turkey, they can be used as one of the elements of an early warning system; that is, as one of the elements of the European missile defence system which the USA is ardently defending by now".
...
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Nov 23, 2012 7:39 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.stripes.com/news/na
Stars and Stripes
November 23, 2012
NATO Allied Land Command activating next week in Turkey
By John Vandiver
====
Establishing the headquarters in Turkey — home to NATO’s second largest military - makes good strategic sense, [Lt. Gen. Frederick] Hodges said.
“Turkey’s location from a geographic standpoint — adjacent to the Middle East, nearly adjacent to Russia — it’s an important location,” Hodges said. “It sends a signal not only to Turkey and the rest of the alliance. It sends a signal to the other neighbors.”
====
STUTTGART, Germany: A new NATO land command headquarters, restructured to streamline costs and decision making, will be activated next week in Turkey as the new home for planning how infantrymen from the 28-nation alliance fight together.
As the war in Afghanistan winds down, one of the prime focuses of NATO Allied Land Command will be harnessing that war fighting experience to ensure that the alliance doesn’t lose the lessons learned, said the American Army officer commanding the new headquarters in Izmir, Turkey.
Coming off more than a decade at war, the level of “interoperability” among NATO members is at an all-time high, Lt. Gen. Frederick “Ben” Hodges, said.
“My job will be to maintain that level of interoperability,” Hodges said. “You’ve got to retain this experience, and a lot of that resides in the noncommissioned officer corps.”
Following an activation ceremony on Friday in Izmir, Allied Land Command headquarters will formally assume the responsibilities of Force Command Heidelberg, Germany, and Force Command Madrid, Spain, which are being deactivated as part of NATO’s transformation. A similar merger of Air Command headquarters formerly in Turkey with one in Germany is taking place at Ramstein Air Base.
The Allied Land Command is responsible for ensuring readiness of NATO forces, conducting land operations and synchronizing land force command and control.
...
[An] area of focus for Hodges is lobbying for a U.S. policy change that currently limits tours in Izmir to one-year unaccompanied missions for U.S. personnel. To ensure the U.S. can attract the best troops to the command, tours in Izmir should become accompanied and extended like other alliance members’ tours, according to Hodges.
“The current policy hurts our effectiveness,” said Hodges. “I think it marginalizes the American contribution to some extent.”
...
Meanwhile, Hodges said he hopes to develop an exercise that would bring together allies in a rugged environment to test their logistical and communication abilities.
For NATO reaction forces to be effective, “we’re going to have to ramp up some of our training,” he said.
While NATO may not have the resources to bring back something on the massive scale of the Cold War-era Reforger exercise, ground troops would benefit from getting together for a major logistics event, Hodges said. “You’ve got to apply rigor to truly test logistics.”
...
Establishing the headquarters in Turkey — home to NATO’s second largest military - makes good strategic sense, Hodges said.
“Turkey’s location from a geographic standpoint — adjacent to the Middle East, nearly adjacent to Russia — it’s an important location,” Hodges said. “It sends a signal not only to Turkey and the rest of the alliance. It sends a signal to the other neighbors.”
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Stars and Stripes
November 23, 2012
NATO Allied Land Command activating next week in Turkey
By John Vandiver
====
Establishing the headquarters in Turkey — home to NATO’s second largest military - makes good strategic sense, [Lt. Gen. Frederick] Hodges said.
“Turkey’s location from a geographic standpoint — adjacent to the Middle East, nearly adjacent to Russia — it’s an important location,” Hodges said. “It sends a signal not only to Turkey and the rest of the alliance. It sends a signal to the other neighbors.”
====
STUTTGART, Germany: A new NATO land command headquarters, restructured to streamline costs and decision making, will be activated next week in Turkey as the new home for planning how infantrymen from the 28-nation alliance fight together.
As the war in Afghanistan winds down, one of the prime focuses of NATO Allied Land Command will be harnessing that war fighting experience to ensure that the alliance doesn’t lose the lessons learned, said the American Army officer commanding the new headquarters in Izmir, Turkey.
Coming off more than a decade at war, the level of “interoperability” among NATO members is at an all-time high, Lt. Gen. Frederick “Ben” Hodges, said.
“My job will be to maintain that level of interoperability,” Hodges said. “You’ve got to retain this experience, and a lot of that resides in the noncommissioned officer corps.”
Following an activation ceremony on Friday in Izmir, Allied Land Command headquarters will formally assume the responsibilities of Force Command Heidelberg, Germany, and Force Command Madrid, Spain, which are being deactivated as part of NATO’s transformation. A similar merger of Air Command headquarters formerly in Turkey with one in Germany is taking place at Ramstein Air Base.
The Allied Land Command is responsible for ensuring readiness of NATO forces, conducting land operations and synchronizing land force command and control.
...
[An] area of focus for Hodges is lobbying for a U.S. policy change that currently limits tours in Izmir to one-year unaccompanied missions for U.S. personnel. To ensure the U.S. can attract the best troops to the command, tours in Izmir should become accompanied and extended like other alliance members’ tours, according to Hodges.
“The current policy hurts our effectiveness,” said Hodges. “I think it marginalizes the American contribution to some extent.”
...
Meanwhile, Hodges said he hopes to develop an exercise that would bring together allies in a rugged environment to test their logistical and communication abilities.
For NATO reaction forces to be effective, “we’re going to have to ramp up some of our training,” he said.
While NATO may not have the resources to bring back something on the massive scale of the Cold War-era Reforger exercise, ground troops would benefit from getting together for a major logistics event, Hodges said. “You’ve got to apply rigor to truly test logistics.”
...
Establishing the headquarters in Turkey — home to NATO’s second largest military - makes good strategic sense, Hodges said.
“Turkey’s location from a geographic standpoint — adjacent to the Middle East, nearly adjacent to Russia — it’s an important location,” Hodges said. “It sends a signal not only to Turkey and the rest of the alliance. It sends a signal to the other neighbors.”
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:07 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://cominf.org/en/node/1166
Republic News Agency
November 23, 2012
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of South Ossetia: the goal of Tbilisi is the same - to establish control over South Ossetia
Edited by RR
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia
Twenty-three years ago, November 23, 1989, on the outskirts of Tskhinval a march of tens of thousands of Georgian extremists, organized by leaders of the nationalist movements, through complicity of the authorities of Georgia was stopped. The march to Tskhinval was aimed at intimidating the Ossetians which would be followed by their expulsion from the territory of South Ossetia.
That plan of the Georgian nationalists was thwarted, however. Those November days were a prologue to the long struggle of the people of South Ossetia for the right to life, liberty, and human dignity.
The repeated armed invasions by Georgian gunmen and army units in South Ossetia in 1990-1992, in 2004 and 2008 and their barbaric atrocities have cost the people of South Ossetia enormous victims and immeasurable suffering.
Thousands of our fellow citizens have become the victims of the armed aggression and genocide carried out by different regimes in Georgia over the past twenty years. The only possible way for Ossetians to withstand and survive was to restore their independent statehood.
Now the Republic of South Ossetia is a country that has obtained international recognition.
In Georgia [the government] still does not want to recognize the current reality and continues to dream of revenge. Georgia's new authorities are camouflaging their intentions with regard to South Ossetia by rhetorical tricks, talking about the possibility of all sorts of bonuses and economic benefits to attract Ossetians. The goal of Tbilisi has remained the same - to establish its control over South Ossetia.
Imperial ambitions, which have been nurtured in Tbilisi, are unrelated to South Ossetia. Georgia has never had a legal right to the territory of South Ossetia, which was included in the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1922, against the will of the Ossetian people. By the denunciation of all acts adopted in 1921, Georgia in 1990 completely destroyed any state-legal basis for the maintenance of South Ossetia in its composition.
The people of South Ossetia have repeatedly reaffirmed the will for independence at referendums in 1992, 2001 and 2006. South Ossetia's status is determined by its people and is not negotiable. Forver 20 years, South Ossetia has been an independent state; since 2008 it has won international recognition. This objective reality is undeniable and, sooner or later, Georgia will also have to admit that.
If the new Georgian government really wants to normalize relations with the Republic of South Ossetia, first of all they must agree to sign a legally-binding agreement on the non-use of force, to accept responsibility for the genocide of the people of South Ossetia, to punish the perpetrators of crimes against our people and to make up for all the damage caused to our country. Only on this basis can good-neighbourly relations between the Republic of South Ossetia and Georgia be established. Any other ideas that seem enticing to the new Georgian leadership will not be accepted by the people of South Ossetia.
Republic News Agency
November 23, 2012
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of South Ossetia: the goal of Tbilisi is the same - to establish control over South Ossetia
Edited by RR
Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of South Ossetia
Twenty-three years ago, November 23, 1989, on the outskirts of Tskhinval a march of tens of thousands of Georgian extremists, organized by leaders of the nationalist movements, through complicity of the authorities of Georgia was stopped. The march to Tskhinval was aimed at intimidating the Ossetians which would be followed by their expulsion from the territory of South Ossetia.
That plan of the Georgian nationalists was thwarted, however. Those November days were a prologue to the long struggle of the people of South Ossetia for the right to life, liberty, and human dignity.
The repeated armed invasions by Georgian gunmen and army units in South Ossetia in 1990-1992, in 2004 and 2008 and their barbaric atrocities have cost the people of South Ossetia enormous victims and immeasurable suffering.
Thousands of our fellow citizens have become the victims of the armed aggression and genocide carried out by different regimes in Georgia over the past twenty years. The only possible way for Ossetians to withstand and survive was to restore their independent statehood.
Now the Republic of South Ossetia is a country that has obtained international recognition.
In Georgia [the government] still does not want to recognize the current reality and continues to dream of revenge. Georgia's new authorities are camouflaging their intentions with regard to South Ossetia by rhetorical tricks, talking about the possibility of all sorts of bonuses and economic benefits to attract Ossetians. The goal of Tbilisi has remained the same - to establish its control over South Ossetia.
Imperial ambitions, which have been nurtured in Tbilisi, are unrelated to South Ossetia. Georgia has never had a legal right to the territory of South Ossetia, which was included in the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1922, against the will of the Ossetian people. By the denunciation of all acts adopted in 1921, Georgia in 1990 completely destroyed any state-legal basis for the maintenance of South Ossetia in its composition.
The people of South Ossetia have repeatedly reaffirmed the will for independence at referendums in 1992, 2001 and 2006. South Ossetia's status is determined by its people and is not negotiable. Forver 20 years, South Ossetia has been an independent state; since 2008 it has won international recognition. This objective reality is undeniable and, sooner or later, Georgia will also have to admit that.
If the new Georgian government really wants to normalize relations with the Republic of South Ossetia, first of all they must agree to sign a legally-binding agreement on the non-use of force, to accept responsibility for the genocide of the people of South Ossetia, to punish the perpetrators of crimes against our people and to make up for all the damage caused to our country. Only on this basis can good-neighbourly relations between the Republic of South Ossetia and Georgia be established. Any other ideas that seem enticing to the new Georgian leadership will not be accepted by the people of South Ossetia.
