It is a mistake on part of NATO to continue to push for enlargement – Hall Gardner, Professor of Political Science at The American University of Paris

nato 4

‘It is a mistake on part of NATO to continue to push for enlargement’ – expert

NATO enlargement process will continue through the Eastern Europe. Thus, cooperation with Ukraine will be activated. That is according to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. “Now Ukraine has stated in the past that it would not join NATO, that it is neutral and I think it is a mistake on the part of NATO to continue to push for what is called “open enlargement”, Hall Gardner, Professor of Political Science at The American University of Paris, told The Voice of Russia.

The current Ukrainian authorities repeatedly stated that NATO membership was out of question.

The Secretary General stressed that any European state that is able to promote compliance with the basic principles of the alliance and ready to contribute to security in its area, may apply for membership in NATO. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and Georgia are reportedly seeking to become NATO members.

Mr.Rasmussen also stressed that the partnership with Ukraine would continue to strengthen. Next week Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Deshchytsa is to discuss cooperation with the alliance.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s office term as Secretary General of NATO expires in September 2014. He will be replaced by the former prime minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg.

Ukrainian Prime Minister designate Arseny Yatsenyuk repeatedly stated that the question of joining NATO was not on the agenda. This was also confirmed by Foreign Minister Andrey Deshchytsa. He reminded that in accordance with country’s laws, Ukraine is a non-aligned state.

Hall Gardner, Professor of Political Science at The American University of Paris, comments:

How do you expect NATO’s relations with Ukraine to develop?

I think it is absolutely crucial at this point that neither NATO nor Russia do anything to aggravate the situation. I think we have to calm down, think about this, after the annexation of Crimea they have to do everything to calm it down. Now Ukraine has stated in the past that it would not join NATO, that it is neutral and I think it is a mistake on the part of NATO to continue to push for what is called “open enlargement”. That is to say that we need really joint NATO, Ukraine and Russian cooperation in calming the situation down. And that is going to take some time to achieve because of the annexation of Crimea. But in my view as the dust settles, we can begin to think about new ways to establish European security. This is going to take a while to negotiate but I believe it is possible.

Where do you think NATO is going to be expanding in Eastern Europe? What does that entail?

It is looking to the Balkans right now and of course this is one of the factors that created the tensions with Russia to begin with when NATO intervened in Serbia and split off Kosovo, this led the Russians to push for the separation of South Ossetia from Georgia, that was kind of tit for tat relations where both sides are competing with each other for control over Black Sea, Caucuses and Balkans region. And that rivalry has to end, if it is not going to end in a disaster. In other words, the possibility of conflict generated particularly if Ukraine doesn’t remain neutral, or Ukraine is divided, becomes more possible that the divided Ukraine would generate a new cold war. So, with the tensions in the Caucuses and over the Black Sea and Balkans area begins to generate tensions between Russia and NATO. My point is that, as Kissinger said, Ukraine is absolutely essential that it remains neutral, we begin to discuss what this Crimean annexation means and look towards ways to bring both sides together as opposed to split them apart.

Could NATO’s policy change when Jens Stoltenberg takes the reins from Anders Fogh Rasmussen as NATO’s leader?

I think he is a little bit more neutral on the NATO enlargement question. I don’t think he wants to do anything that will really antagonize or exacerbate the crisis that we are already facing. As I said, it is most important that we need to calm down. The present Secretary of NATO for example has offered to provide NATO assistance to Ukrainian military but that is really posturing. There is not much that NATO can do in support of Ukraine’s arms forces at this point. The Ukrainian army has been obliterated since Yanukovich took control. And what I am worried about here is that NATO is sending a long message that if there is a hope that Ukraine might shift towards NATO at some point, that is going to divide the population between the pro-NATO side and the pro-western side. That is precisely the signal that we can’t afford to generate at this time. We have to find ways that the Europeans, the US and Russians work together on these questions.

Source: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_04_01/It-is-a-mistake-on-part-of-NATO-to-continue-to-push-for-enlargement-expert-7051/

nato 1 nato 2 nato 3 nato 5

+++

 

 

Advertisements

Tags:

10 Responses to “It is a mistake on part of NATO to continue to push for enlargement – Hall Gardner, Professor of Political Science at The American University of Paris”

  1. blessedistruth Says:

    #ukraine #crimea #russia #Донецк #Харьков #Donetsk #Kharkiv #Georgia #NATO

    It is a mistake on part of NATO to continue to push for enlargement – Hall Gardner, Professor of Political Science at The American University of Paris

    https://blessedistruth.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/it-is-a-mistake-on-part-of-nato-to-continue-to-push-for-enlargement-hall-gardner-professor-of-political-science-at-the-american-university-of-paris/

  2. blessedistruth Says:

    hey Cindy can you do me a solid? pls tell Bill y’all wanna go out for dinner Thurs nite. It’s a long story but it involves a bird nesting in our grill and Bill almost burning down the neighborhood (natural gas) okay I’m exaggerating, but still … pls email me @yahoo.com

  3. blessedistruth Says:

    youtube.com/watch?v=ux8v5ZM6is4

  4. blessedistruth Says:

    Michael J. Murphy and Barry Kolsky

  5. blessedistruth Says:

    http://plus.google.com/118220563519418400277/posts

  6. blessedistruth Says:

    #benghazi #SusanRice

    Saturday, 7:12 pm –

    Further evidence that these points were knowingly to be used by Susan Rice, Rhodes says to USUN address confirming with “yup” that these are these are the final points to be used on Sunday for Rice.

    These emails make clear that the CIA did not make these changes of its own volition.

    +++

    The Facts about the White House Benghazi Emails

    Posted by Kevin Smith
    May 20, 2013
    General
    On April 23, 2013, five House committees – Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight & Government Reform – released their interim investigative report on the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans. The interim report found, among other things, that:

    After the attack in Benghazi, the Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video.
    Senior State Department officials requested that talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community be scrubbed to exclude references to al Qaeda and terrorism to avoid criticism for ignoring the threat environment in Benghazi, and that those changes were ultimately made.
    The Administration deflected responsibility by blaming the Intelligence Community for the information it communicated to the public in both the talking points and the subsequent narrative it perpetuated.
    Under pressure from Republicans, this week the White House released a series of emails about the Benghazi talking points that confirm the interim report’s finding and contradict the White House’s long-standing claims that it and the State Department only changed one word in the talking points. Amazingly, the White House continues to maintain the changes to the talking points were CIA edits, but the emails clearly show otherwise. Yes, the CIA physically made the changes on paper, but it was done at the urging of the State Department (with White House support) because they didn’t want to be criticized for providing inadequate security. Here’s a number of emails that contradict the White House’s claims:

    Friday, 7:39pm – State Dept’s Victoria Nuland expresses “serious concerns” about content of TPs
    Friday, 8:39pm – Adams (State Legislative Affairs) writes: “I’m with Toria [Nuland]. The last bullet especially will read to members like we had been repeatedly warned” about possible attacks
    Friday, 9:15pm – CIA OPA writes to CIA OCA: “Here’s where we stand as of this hour. . . . Everyone has submitted coordination comments. . . .The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document. We revised the document with their comments in mind.”
    Friday 9:24pm – Nuland replies to new draft of talking points: “These don’t resolve all my issues of those of my building leadership. They are consulting with NSS.”
    Friday 9:24pm – Nuland forwards the email message she wrote stating “these don’t resolve all my issues . . .” to Jake Sullivan at State with a note “FYSA.”
    Friday 9:25pm – State’s Sullivan sends email, “I spoke with Tommy [Vietor at the White House]. We’ll work through this in the morning and get comments back.”
    Friday 9:26pm – Vietor sends email “Given the DOJ equities and States desire to run some traps, safe to assume we can hold off on this until tomorrow?”
    Friday, 9:32pm – State’s Jake Sullivan replies to Nuland’s email of 9:24pm and replies, “Talked to Tommy [at the White House] – we can make edits.”
    Friday, 9:34pm – White House’s Ben Rhodes sends email: “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all relevant equities . . . we can take this up tomorrow at deputies”
    Friday, 9:52pm – CIA OPA sends email to CIA OCA an email – a draft note for the Director [Petraeus]: “Sir – we’ve tried to work the draft talking points for HPSCI through the coordination process and have run into major problems. . . . State has major concerns.” (p. 59)
    Friday, 8:58 pm – As evidence that WH intended to use these points for the Admin’s messaging: Vieter to Nuland, Sullivan, and Rhodes “We will use these too” in response to Nuland’s email of 8:55 “These points are for Congress to use with Press. Shdnt they be consistent with our own public lines if we are recommending them?”
    Saturday, 11:08am – CIA’s Morell writes, “Per the discussion at Deputies, here are the revised TPs for the HPSCI.”
    Saturday, 12:14pm – CIA OPA writes, “Here’s where we are with the tweaks after tweaks from Ben and Jake.”
    Saturday, 2:27pm – CIA Director David Petraeus to CIA OCA “No mention of cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then… NSS’s call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclass use.”
    Saturday, 7:12 pm – Further evidence that these points were knowingly to be used by Susan Rice, Rhodes says to USUN address confirming with “yup” that these are these are the final points to be used on Sunday for Rice.
    These emails make clear that the CIA did not make these changes of its own volition. When releasing this series of emails, the White House attempted to claim that the CIA’s Mike Morell decided to make changes to the talking points independent of any concerns from the State Department. But nothing in these emails back up this White House claim. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. The emails confirm that the talking point changes were made at the request of the State Department, and with the White House’s support.

    The seemingly political nature of the State Department’s concerns raises questions about the motivations behind these changes and who at the State Department was seeking them. In the coming days and months, Republicans will continue to seek answers from this White House and administration, because the American people, and the families of the fallen, deserve the truth.

    Tags: Libya

    http://www.speaker.gov/general/facts-about-white-house-benghazi-emails

    [If MSNBC reported Benghazi truth and FOXNEWS reported Chris Christie truth, then What a wonderful world this would be.]

  7. blessedistruth Says:

    #benghazi #SusanRice

    Saturday, 7:12 pm –

    Further evidence that these points were knowingly to be used by Susan Rice, Rhodes says to USUN address confirming with “yup” that these are these are the final points to be used on Sunday for Rice.

    These emails make clear that the CIA did not make these changes of its own volition.

    http://tl.gd/n_1s18ao9

  8. blessedistruth Says:

    BBC Global Dimming Documentary About Geoengineering & Global Warming http://www.skyderalert.com/profile-575/link-id_6436/t_1396455647/

  9. blessedistruth Says:

    #chrisChristie #AndrewCuomo #DavidSamson

    Cuomo Went Along with Christie’s Port Authority Money Grab
    Bob and Barbara Dreyfuss on April 2, 2014

    Christie may have hoped that last week’s resignation of Port Authority chairman David Samson, a Christie political mentor, would end the headlines linking his administration to unethical and possibly illegal activity at the Port Authority.

    But new revelations are already coming out about how he pressured legal staff at the PA to find ways to justify a money grab that they warned he couldn’t do.

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/179129/cuomo-went-along-christies-port-authority-money-grab

  10. blessedistruth Says:

    #CatherineAustinFitts #chemtrails #WesleyClark #NineEleven

    Catherine Austin Fitts – Grappling with chemtrails and General Wesley Clark Battle Plan after 9/11
     
    … they’re also grappling with smart meters, they’re also grappling with chemtrails, they’re also grappling with food safety regulations and cuts in …

    Right after 9/11 – and General Wesley Clark has said … the battle plan was going to be – the US military taking over Eurasia. First we were going to go to Afghanistan, then we were going to go to Iraq, then we were going to go to Libya, then we were going to go to Syria and then we’re going to Iran. It was all laid out for us and we seem to be following that battle plan, albeit slower than predicted at that time.

    Catherine Austin Fitts on Moral Investing and the Coming Equity ‘Crash-Up’

    With Anthony Wile – October 13, 2013

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: