1
1
0
From "IHS Jane's 360"
Russia seeks partnership with West in fight against Islamic State, despite Ukraine
The Russian government would like to put its differences with the West over Ukraine behind it so as to fully partner in the fight against the Islamic State, a senior official said on 18 November.
Speaking at the Berlin Security Conference (BSC) 2015, held between 17 and 18 November 2015, the Russian Federation's permanent representative to NATO, Ambassador Alexander Grushko, said his country wants to fully engage with the European Union and the West against the Islamic State, but that it is being hamstrung in doing so by the ongoing schism over Ukraine.
"Russia is not a part of the [NATO] Article 5 machinery [that an attack on one is an attack on all] and Russia is not a part of [European Union] Article 42.7 machinery [that calls for EU-wide solidarity should a member state be the victim of armed aggression on its territory] either, but yesterday President Putin said that Russia should render support to France as the closest ally. We do believe that in such issues as the struggle against [the Islamic State] there should be no artificial dividing lines in terms of which organisations countries belong to - we have a common agenda," the ambassador said.
http://www.janes.com/article/56087/russia-seeks-partnership-with-west-in-fight-against-islamic-state-despite-ukraine?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_J360%2020.11.15%20_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
Russia seeks partnership with West in fight against Islamic State, despite Ukraine
The Russian government would like to put its differences with the West over Ukraine behind it so as to fully partner in the fight against the Islamic State, a senior official said on 18 November.
Speaking at the Berlin Security Conference (BSC) 2015, held between 17 and 18 November 2015, the Russian Federation's permanent representative to NATO, Ambassador Alexander Grushko, said his country wants to fully engage with the European Union and the West against the Islamic State, but that it is being hamstrung in doing so by the ongoing schism over Ukraine.
"Russia is not a part of the [NATO] Article 5 machinery [that an attack on one is an attack on all] and Russia is not a part of [European Union] Article 42.7 machinery [that calls for EU-wide solidarity should a member state be the victim of armed aggression on its territory] either, but yesterday President Putin said that Russia should render support to France as the closest ally. We do believe that in such issues as the struggle against [the Islamic State] there should be no artificial dividing lines in terms of which organisations countries belong to - we have a common agenda," the ambassador said.
http://www.janes.com/article/56087/russia-seeks-partnership-with-west-in-fight-against-islamic-state-despite-ukraine?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_J360%2020.11.15%20_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
Russia
ISIS
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 4
0
0
0
Yes, we should annihilate them together. Afterwards Obama and Putin can still compare penis size
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
This is a classic Russian-type of play. They can't sustain operations everywhere, so they want to ensure that we are focused where they want us to be. "Look! Syria!" Never mind their wars of aggression in Crimea, Trans-Dneistr, or Moldavia (one that nobody has really noticed for a while).
While they are being ever so cooperative, they continue laying the groundwork for separatist movements to grow in Ukraine and Moldova and maybe even convince the EU to lift some of those economic sanctions which, despite the rhetoric coming from Moscow, jacked up their currency pretty good.
Don't be fooled. They are serving their own interest here and only their interests. They are smiling with their teeth, while their left hand holds a dagger to plunge into a neighbor while we aren't looking.
While they are being ever so cooperative, they continue laying the groundwork for separatist movements to grow in Ukraine and Moldova and maybe even convince the EU to lift some of those economic sanctions which, despite the rhetoric coming from Moscow, jacked up their currency pretty good.
Don't be fooled. They are serving their own interest here and only their interests. They are smiling with their teeth, while their left hand holds a dagger to plunge into a neighbor while we aren't looking.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
1SG (Join to see) - First; Although I agree that the Russioans "can't sustain operations EVERYWHERE", at this stage of the game I wouldn't want to bet that the Russians "can't sustain operations" where they want to sustain them.
You might note that the Crimea has been a part of Russia since 1802 and the majority of the population of the Crimean Peninsula is of ethnic Russian stock (who want to be a part of Russia and not of Ukraine). It is long established and publicly voiced American policy that "peoples" have the "right" to "self-determination" and should not be forced to remain a part of states to which they do not want to belong. (Admittedly there are is the odd exception to that policy - but those only kick in when "rebels, revolutionaries, and terrorists" want to leave "our side" and join "their side". The exceptions NEVER apply when "freedom fighters and patriots" want to leave "their side" and join "our side".)
You might also note that Transnistria - unlike the rest of Moldova did not wish to separate from the Soviet Union - and the people's desires for "self-determination" are being frustrated by the Moldovians. Transnistria is 'de facto' an independent country although not actually recognized by any member country of the United Nations.
Of course the Russians are "serving their own interests". That is what governments of countries do - serve the interests of their own country. Do you think that a single government in the world today would take issue with the conduct of ISIS if it could actually receive trustworthy assurances that ISIS would never take any action against them, the country they govern, or the people of that country?
(Please note the inclusion of the word "trustworthy" in the question. If the assurances are NOT "trustworthy" then they don't count so any argument based on "But we couldn't trust them." is irrelevant.)
PS "Moldavia" ceased to exist in 1859 when it united with Romania. The western half of the former Moldavia remains sundered and forced to be a part of Romania, the north eastern portion is now the Republic of Moldova, and the northern and southeastern parts are being held by Ukraine by force of arms. If anyone is "aggressing" against "Moldavia" it is the Romanians and Ukrainians who are holding most of "Moldavia" in thrall and denying them their "historic homeland".
PPS - Laying the groundwork for separatist movements to exist is nothing new, the US governments did that routinely from 1950 onward.
You might note that the Crimea has been a part of Russia since 1802 and the majority of the population of the Crimean Peninsula is of ethnic Russian stock (who want to be a part of Russia and not of Ukraine). It is long established and publicly voiced American policy that "peoples" have the "right" to "self-determination" and should not be forced to remain a part of states to which they do not want to belong. (Admittedly there are is the odd exception to that policy - but those only kick in when "rebels, revolutionaries, and terrorists" want to leave "our side" and join "their side". The exceptions NEVER apply when "freedom fighters and patriots" want to leave "their side" and join "our side".)
You might also note that Transnistria - unlike the rest of Moldova did not wish to separate from the Soviet Union - and the people's desires for "self-determination" are being frustrated by the Moldovians. Transnistria is 'de facto' an independent country although not actually recognized by any member country of the United Nations.
Of course the Russians are "serving their own interests". That is what governments of countries do - serve the interests of their own country. Do you think that a single government in the world today would take issue with the conduct of ISIS if it could actually receive trustworthy assurances that ISIS would never take any action against them, the country they govern, or the people of that country?
(Please note the inclusion of the word "trustworthy" in the question. If the assurances are NOT "trustworthy" then they don't count so any argument based on "But we couldn't trust them." is irrelevant.)
PS "Moldavia" ceased to exist in 1859 when it united with Romania. The western half of the former Moldavia remains sundered and forced to be a part of Romania, the north eastern portion is now the Republic of Moldova, and the northern and southeastern parts are being held by Ukraine by force of arms. If anyone is "aggressing" against "Moldavia" it is the Romanians and Ukrainians who are holding most of "Moldavia" in thrall and denying them their "historic homeland".
PPS - Laying the groundwork for separatist movements to exist is nothing new, the US governments did that routinely from 1950 onward.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google