|
|
From notes@igc5.igc.org Thu Nov 30 04:23:09 1995 Received: from igc5.igc.org (192.82.108.36) by MediaFilter.org with SMTP (MailShare 1.0b10); Thu, 30 Nov 1995 04:23:10 -0500 Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by igc5.igc.org (8.7.1/8.7.1) id AAA17990; Thu, 30 Nov 1995 00:49:27 -0800 (PST) Date: 29 Nov 1995 23:49:59 Reply-To: Conference "zamir.chat"From: Ivo Skoric Subject: Re: http://mediafilter.org/SJ/Pages/Wondering about Russia To: Recipients of zamir-chat-l Message-ID: <199511300749.XAA13370@igc3.igc.apc.org> In-Reply-To: <1394514367-517997@mediafilter.org> X-Gateway: conf2mail@igc.apc.org Errors-To: owner-zamir-chat-l@igc.apc.org Precedence: bulk Lines: 53 From: "Ivo Skoric" Subject: Re: http://mediafilter.org/SJ/Pages/Wondering about Russia Date: 28 Nov 1995 22:17:54 Reply-to: Conference "zamir.chat" From: rgraeves@mail.sas.upenn.edu Subject: Re: http://mediafilter.org/SJ/Pages/Wondering about Russia To: Recipients of zamir-chat-l I am searching for information and commentary on the role of Russia in the Bosnia war and especially in the implementation of the peace plan. What does it mean that Russian peacekeepers will be serving in a US division which itself is a part of the NATO peacekeeping force? >>Russians did not want to serve under NATO command. Yet they agreed to serve under direct US command (reserving the right to veto any operation). It is a very complicated deal and it will require a lot of day to day arbitration in order to work. However, NATO needed Russias cooperation - Russia was sending weapons to Serbs, and the US would not like another cold-war conflict. On the other hand, it would be difficult to get Russians to serve under command of those who were enemies until yesterday. US are a part of the NATO force, or more precisely NATO force is a part of the US force (US is commander and chief of the operation as it was in Kuwait), So, in part Russias decision is pure pragmatism: for past four years both NATO and UN showed to be incompetent leaders in military operations, and everybody, including Russians, hope that the US would bring a welcomed change to that situation. Does this mean anything for future Russia-NATO relations? >>>NATO doesn't really want Russia. And Russia doesn't really want NATO. Yet both Russia and NATO are unstable and fragile things. They will feign animosity to prevent countries like Poland to become a part of NATO because they both don't want it to happen right now. But who knows what will future bring, and what kind of presidents would sit in Washington and Moscow as early as 1997. Does it say anything about the future of NATO in general? >>>>Yeah - it says that NATO just barely survived its timely dismemberment. If the US did not step in, NATO would surely fall apart driven on three or more various sides by rivaling European powers. Still, existence of NATO in the future is very dubious. Any suggestions or opinions would be welcomed. God bless!