Do RF Organization of the Contract of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in its current form? (Poll)

Now, as you know, Russian Federation consists in a military-political union as the Collective Security Treaty Organization. In addition to our country in the company contracted to the Collective Security includes countries such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Armenia. Uzbekistan last summer decided to stop their membership in the CSTO. And the suspension of Uzbekistan's membership far not the only one in its own way. At the time, inputs, outputs, and suspension of membership have already taken place to be.

Sketch Alexei Merinova (http://www.mk.ru)

A number of Russian political scientists now wonders whether the CSTO truly combat capable and effective organization, and stands if she truly unified military-political bloc. Such a question has appeared not only in view of the fact that the heads of states allow for some pretty rapid manipulation skills "to be or not to be" in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, but in connection with the cash component of the question, as to what is referred to as real combat potential of the organization .
If we talk about the budget of the Contract on collective security, it is about 160 million rubles. Amount as if not the most impressive of the military-political bloc …

50% of this amount — the means of, and the other 50% are divided in equal parts between the other participating countries. Not considering suspends membership in the CSTO Uzbekistan, it can be concluded that other countries are entered in the budget of 16 million rubles. With all of this, many members of the organization are trying to use these tools is very typical method. The point of this method is about following: we give the overall salt away their 16 million, and you're there with our safety out yourself. In other words, if you please to spin as you wish, but we want to be protected … The position is very ordinary. A if consider that, for example, the same Kyrgyzstan including contributions in the form of designated amounts virtually no productive action in the framework of the CSTO does not, the position is generally similar to the frankly opportunistic. Tajik authorities often manage to being in the CSTO, frankly povilivat tail in the other side of the military-political alliances, using this situation for political bargaining and additional guarantees and preferences of the Russian Federation. Well, the economic differences that sometimes appear between CSTO member states, weird way, is a cause for demarches or frowning eyebrows among certain politicians boycotting the summit of the organization and taken to address them.
In this connection the question arises even more acutely: whether the RF is now such a organization as the CSTO? Is the CSTO only far-fetched attempt to consolidate the states that were once part of the 1st great country?

On the one hand, all the demarches, outputs, inputs, boycott the summit decisions, waivers role in military exercises and allow the other to reflect on the need for a CSTO general. But on the other hand can be a different conclusion. Yes, CSTO No such defense budget of 1.4 billion dollars as NATO. We do not have such a massive CSTO from a military point of view, as in the North Atlantic Alliance. But the CSTO no such political promiscuity as NATO.

All the countries that now are part of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, despite its apparent unpredictability, in fact much closer in spirit to each other than, for example, Greece and Turkey or Poland and Germany, the North Atlantic alliance. The countries of the CSTO united not only slippery rules on mutual military assistance, and in fact the general social field, which although poistrepalos in recent years, but still managed to keep their bases. If we talk about the external fragmentation, it is primarily associated with the activities of top managers who come and go, but the common interests of the peoples remain.

The problem here is, rather, the fact that the CSTO is not quite true-defined strategic objectives. If this goal — a willingness to support the difficult situation the country is in a difficult military and political situation, this willingness now more declared, if performed. In some cases, it is not clear exactly how they were going to behave the country-members of the organization, if one of the countries is to engage in a military conflict with a State not a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Such a question clearly evident in 2008, when Georgian troops were shot in cold blood Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia. With all of this position of the Organization of the Collective Security Contract was more than a neutral, if not directed at the apparent support of the Georgian authorities …

Now a nervous situation exists around the relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan. If we admit the fact that, God forbid, in the region once again there will be blood, the CSTO countries will have to, as it were, by definition, to support Armenia. But will this support to the extinction of the conflict? Of course, no. And of course, that such a conflict of some forces that are already quite in other countries will be subjected to excessive cultivation to achieve their own political goals and put yourself in a comfortable situation as …

If talk about the development of the material-technical base, it is quite unclear why many strategically fundamental objects that are identified as components of the cooperation of the CSTO is now more like a derelict site that a potential opponent is unlikely to create a tribute to the memory. Whether there funding from the budget, or does it work in the interests of a narrow group of people — it is very difficult to say.

It turns out that the CSTO as it is, and the commonality of the fact there is, at the genetic level, but with the awareness mission of the organization even in the midst of its members obviously not all right. Someone sits out in the Collective Security Treaty Organization frankly, someone is willing to sign any papers to visualize the work of the organization, and someone "in and out" on the basis of the direction from which he got his feet and his political partners …

The most unusual is now a disease characterized by the CSTO and NATO. There has long been lost keynote efficiency of the organization. Now the main and almost incomprehensible purpose of NATO — the mindless expansion and unquestioning support of the main players.

Hunt hope that the CSTO will follow a more constructive path.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: