[Via Communist Internet... http://www.egroups.com/group/Communist-Internet ] . . ----- Original Message ----- From: Miroslav Antic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: News <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; BALKAN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; SNN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 'YAHOO' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: 'NATO' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 2:00 AM Subject: NATO, Russia Compare Force Levels [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Visit our website: HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK --------------------------------------------- Jane's Defence Weekly August 1, 2001 [for personal use only] NATO, Russia Compare Force Levels By Luke Hill, JDW NATO/EU Affairs Correspondent, Brussels An unprecedented level of openness on the size and purpose of the conventional forces of NATO and Russia marked the monthly meeting of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council (PJC) held on 18 July. Nevertheless, Russian officials expressed reservations about encroachment from the West, participants in the meeting told Jane's Defence Weekly. NATO briefed Russian officials on the status of the alliance's implementation of its new force structure, agreed in December 1998 but yet to be fully implemented. Under that plan, NATO would have the ability to mount three concurrent corps-sized operations, with appropriate naval and air elements, and to sustain them for up to two years - in addition to territorial defence and further operations of less than corps-size. NATO is preparing to name three high readiness (0 to 90 days) corps headquarters (HQs), three separate high-readiness maritime HQs and six lower readiness (91 to 180 days) HQs. "What they got from us was an unprecedented briefing on the current force structure and force posture, akin to ministerial advice," a NATO official at the meeting told JDW. NATO's current threat assessments do not envisage an invasion of NATO territory, "so as far as the forces themselves are concerned, the balance between forces optimised for collective defence and those able to be deployed for non-Article 5 crises response operations is clearly moving in the direction of the latter, leading to a reduction of the total number of forces required," said a NATO PJC briefing paper obtained by JDW. Besides an overall reduction in forces, the number of forces stationed on other allies' territory has also decreased. For example, the paper noted, the number of allied forces stationed in Germany has declined from 420,000 in 1990 to about 102,000 today. Further, in the last 10 years there have been overall reductions in land forces of 34% (from about 300 combat brigades to 197); in combat ships by 34% (from 770 to 510); and in combat aircraft of 44% (from about 5,020 to 2,810), NATO said. "We expect this downward trend to continue in the short term as allies continue to restructure their forces to take account of the new strategic environment," the briefing paper said. "Our security assessment does not point to keeping such a high level of forces on high readiness," added the NATO official. The Russian presentation - far less specific because NATO received a briefing on overall Russian military structures earlier this year (down by some 30,000 'units' in the past 10 years) - focused on the northwest region near Norway and Finland where Russian combat forces have been reduced by 40% and there now exists no capability to mount an offensive. "This is to show that we have no intention there to make an offensive," a Russian official told JDW. "We do have some concern about NATO's developing capabilities." Under NATO's 1999 Strategic Concept the alliance does not foresee the need now to build up forces to counter a territorial threat from the east, but those capabilities could still be put in place. Further, it provides consultation with any active partner member that feels its territory is threatened by an unidentified, "large, populous and well equipped nation". "There is only one nation like this - us - so the strategic concept allows NATO to be involved in all countries of the former Soviet Union, right up to our borders. This causes us concern about NATO military development and especially enlargement," the Russian official said. He added that the PJC talks were "the right step" towards providing further transparency and clarification in these matters. A co-operative joint statement on Balkans peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Bosnia and the smouldering situation in Macedonia, where the two sides called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, was the only other subject for discussion in the PJC. ------------------------------------------------- This Discussion List is the follow-up for the old stopnato @listbot.com that has been shut down ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://TOPICA.COM/u/?a84x2u.a9spWC Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
