Thursday, March 28, 2024
11:53 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > CSS Compulsory Subjects > Current Affairs > Current Affairs Notes

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old Saturday, April 12, 2008
Aarwaa's Avatar
Senior Member
CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CSS 2007Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Thanks: 141
Thanked 292 Times in 153 Posts
Aarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura about
Default Expansion of NATO

Nato Expansion


By James Petras



The admission of three former members of the Eastern bloc into NATO was described by President Clinton as "a very great day not only for Europe and the United States, not simply for NATO but indeed for the cause of freedom in the aftermath of the Cold War." Behind the euphoric rhetoric of the NATO leaders and their supporters in the mass media (El Pais in Spain, The New York Times in the U.S.) there is power politics, economic profits, and hegemonic domination.

Washington’s rejection of France’s attempt to increase European influence in the command structure of NATO was a prelude to Clinton dictating the terms for new members of NATO: the three new members (Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic) are U.S. clients; the rejected candidates (Romania and Slovenia) are French and German clients. The real meaning of the "expansion of NATO" is the extension of U.S. hegemony to Central-Eastern Europe. With the U.S. in command that means military bases and deep penetration of the military and security systems of those countries.

Secondly, through U.S. domination of NATO, the new members will be pushed to accelerate the "free market reforms" and increase the opportunities for Western multinational corporations. NATO military forces will back the regimes administrating these "unpopular measures"—strengthening the repressive arm of the state.

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office predicts total cost of NATO enlargement at about $125 billion over 13 years with Washington paying only $19 billion. That means Eastern and Western Europe will have to pay 85 percent of the cost, or $106 billion. At a time of large-scale unemployment and cuts in social budgets in East and West Europe this is likely to lower living standards and provoke greater social unrest. The new members of NATO in East Europe will have to increase their military spending to be on the same footing with their Western partners. U.S. arms manufacturers are the biggest supporters of NATO expansion and will be the principle economic beneficiaries. The president of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, Bruce Jackson, is also the director of Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s best weapons maker. Entering NATO means buying U.S. weapons. The potential market for fighter jets alone is $10 billion. Hungary will increase its military spending by 35 percent, Poland 20 percent, and the Czech Republic by similar percentages.

By shifting from one power bloc (Warsaw Pact) to another (NATO), the Eastern European countries will deepen their clientele relations—a process of re-satellization. Vaclav Havel, Gyula Horn, and Aleksander Kwasniewski, the rulers of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, have undermined the independence of their countries with the hypocrisy and cant reminiscent of the previous Soviet clients.

The expansion of NATO almost to the border of Russia means that U.S. missiles will be only seconds from their major cities. The military forces are a major security threat to Russian internal and external policy. NATO encirclement means that Russian policy will be pressured to conform to Washington’s dictates. The enlargement of U.S. hegemony opens the door to the de facto extension of U.S. influence in the Ukraine and Baltic Republics, through the existing client regimes. It is likely that the increased NATO threat will sooner or later lead to the further subordination of Russia to the West (under Yeltsin) or his replacement (and the elaboration of a new Russian defense policy capable of countering NATO’s advance). Washington can now count on the votes of its new Eastern client members in deepening Western Europe’s subordination to its dictates. The inclusion of the three new members is as much directed at neutralizing West Europe within NATO as it is in increasing U.S. encirclement of Russia.

The growth of U.S. power has been significantly aided by Spanish politicians. Javier Solano has played an active role in implementing Washington’s policy in Bosnia. U.S. policy makers hailed Aznar’s decision to do what France would not and join the NATO military structure. Thus U.S. hegemony within NATO has been strengthened at the expense of Europe thanks to Spanish and Eastern European servility. That is the real meaning of the "enlargement of NATO." And let’s not forget the billion dollar military contracts going to U.S. arms merchants.

In the future, given the increase in military expenditures and decline in social programs, the NATO armed forces may be very busy, not fighting external enemies, but the rebellious domestic population defending their living standards, resisting foreign military encroachments on their democratic freedom and political independence.

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/petrassept97.htm
__________________
Regards

Aarwaa

Pakistan is ruled by three As - Army, America and Allah.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Saturday, April 12, 2008
Aarwaa's Avatar
Senior Member
CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CSS 2007Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Thanks: 141
Thanked 292 Times in 153 Posts
Aarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura about
Default

Russian army chief warns of steps against NATO expansion


Russia's armed forces chief warned Friday that Georgia and Ukraine's desire to join NATO will force Russia to take military steps, Russian news agencies reported.


"Russia will take action aimed at guaranteeing its interests close to its borders. It will not only be measures of a military character. There will be other measures," General Yury Baluyevsky was quoted by Interfax and other agencies as saying, without specifying further.

Earlier this month, NATO turned down Georgia and Ukraine’s applications for Membership Action Plans -- a stepping stone to membership -- but did say both would eventually become NATO members.

Moscow sees the expansion of NATO and the deployment of a US anti-missile shield in central Europe as threats to Russian security.

President Vladimir Putin said in February that Russia would consider directing its missiles at Ukraine if the neighbouring state hosted missile defence facilities.

Baluyevsky said it was too early to talk about Ukrainian or Georgian entry into NATO. "The population of Ukraine is unambiguously against entry to NATO. Despite the so-called referendum in Georgia where seventy percent of the population supported the idea. It is not over yet. We will see," Baluyevsky added.

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/t...d=231&sz=97977
__________________
Regards

Aarwaa

Pakistan is ruled by three As - Army, America and Allah.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Saturday, April 12, 2008
Aarwaa's Avatar
Senior Member
CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CSS 2007Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Thanks: 141
Thanked 292 Times in 153 Posts
Aarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura about
Default

Profile: Nato


Founded: 1949
Membership: 26 nations
Applicant nations: Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia


Formed in 1949 to counter the threat of post-war communist expansion as the Soviet Union sought to extend its influence in Europe, Nato - the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation - is the world's most powerful regional defence alliance.

It has traditionally stated its general aim as being to "safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation" of its members by promoting "stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area".

Members agree that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all, and that they will come to the aid of each other.


Originally consisting of 12 countries, the organisation expanded to include Greece and Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955. However, then, as now, the alliance was militarily dominated by the United States.

In 1955 the Soviet Union created a counter-alliance called the Warsaw Pact, which dissolved after the break-up of the USSR in 1991.

The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland became the first former Warsaw Pact countries to gain Nato membership in 1999.

The next historic step came in 2004 when Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, republics of the USSR until its collapse in 1991, along with Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania were welcomed as Nato members at a ceremony in Washington.

Bosnia, Montenegro and Serbia have joined Nato's Partnership for Peace programme - a first step towards membership. At a summit in Bucharest in early April 2008, NATO countries invited Albania and Croatia to join on schedule. Greece vetoed Macedonia's application, but the alliance agreed that the country would be invited when it settles its dispute with Greece over its name. Decisions on Georgia and Ukraine were deferred until December.

Development

Nato was set up in the post-World War II atmosphere of anxiety, largely to block Soviet expansion into Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and subsequent demise of the Warsaw Pact, therefore, left Nato with no obvious purpose.

Since then Nato has used its defensive role to justify a more proactive approach to "out of area" activities - arguing that instability in any part of Europe would constitute a threat to its members.

Thus, at the end of 1995, for the first time ever, it organised a multinational Implementation Force (Ifor), under a United Nations mandate, to implement the military aspects of the Bosnian peace agreement.

In 1999 the alliance launched an 11-week campaign of air strikes against Yugoslavia to push Serb forces out of Kosovo. The strikes were the largest military operation ever undertaken by Nato, and the first time it had used force against a sovereign state without UN approval. A 16,000-strong Nato peacekeeping force remains in Kosovo.

In 2003 Nato took its operations outside Europe for the first time when it assumed strategic command of the UN-mandated peacekeeping force in and immediately around the Afghan capital, Kabul.

Changing relationships

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Nato embarked on a series of steps designed to build new relationships with former Warsaw Pact countries and particularly with Russia, which was profoundly suspicious of the alliance's plans to expand eastwards.

In 1994 Nato offered former Warsaw Pact members limited associations in the form of the Partnership for Peace programme, allowing them to participate in information sharing, joint exercises and peacekeeping operations.

But this simply appeared to confirm Russian fears that Nato posed a creeping threat to its security.

The Nato-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established in May 1997 to give Russia a consultative role in discussion of matters of mutual interest. While Moscow was given a voice, it rarely felt that it was really listened to.

Russia's fears intensified when in 1999 the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland became the first former Soviet bloc states to join Nato, bringing the alliance's borders 400 miles closer to the Russian frontier.

Aftermath of 11 September

The 11 September 2001 attacks on targets in the US are widely seen as a pivotal moment for Nato. The US did not involve the alliance in the international military campaign which followed, even though Secretary-General George Robertson quickly invoked Article Five of the Nato constitution declaring an attack on one member to be an attack on all.

Russia's supportive reaction following the attacks proved to be the catalyst for a thaw in relations with Moscow. The establishment of the Nato-Russia Council was agreed in May 2002. This body gives Russia an equal role with the Nato countries in decision-making on policy to counter terrorism and other security threats.

While this development has been hailed by some as the moment when Nato brought Russia in from the cold, questions remain as to how the relationship will develop from here, particularly when Nato's expansion reached the borders of Russia in early 2004 with the admission of seven new states.


NATO MEMBERS
Belgium (founder member)
Lithuania (from 2004)
Bulgaria (from 2004)
Luxembourg (founder member)
Canada (founder member)
Netherlands (founder member)
Czech Republic (from 1999)
Norway (founder member)
Denmark (founder member)
Poland (from 1999)
Estonia (from 2004)
Portugal (founder member)
France (founder member)
Romania (from 2004)
Germany (from 1955)
Slovakia (from 2004)
Greece (from 1952)
Slovenia (from 2004)
Hungary (from 1999)
Spain (from 1982)
Iceland (founder member)
Turkey (from 1952)
Italy (founder member)
UK (founder member)
Latvia (from 2004)
USA (founder member)



Leader: Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
Mr De Hoop Scheffer has a reputation as a skilled diplomat

Jaap de Hoop Scheffer became Nato chief at the beginning of 2004, just as the alliance was facing some of the stiffest challenges in its history.

The US-British intervention in Iraq in March 2003 had left a deep split between the war coalition on the one side, and the anti-war camp led by France and Germany on the other.

A former Dutch foreign minister, he took on the challenge of trying to maintain good ties with Paris and Berlin while avoiding alienating the US. He has sought to strengthen Nato's ties with the EU, which has moved towards formulating a defence policy of its own.

He seems to have the necessary qualities for the job. Another former Dutch foreign minister, Hans van den Broek, described him as "very skilled at walking on eggshells", while others have referred to him as "a diplomatic tightrope walker".

But he also has a reputation for being able to engage in tough talking when required. His predecessor as head of Nato, George Robertson, spoke admiringly of his "professionalism and straight talking".

Born in Amsterdam in 1948, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer served in the Dutch air force and then worked at Nato headquarters before entering politics. He was elected to the Dutch parliament as a Christian Democrat in 1986 and later headed the parliamentary party before becoming foreign minister.


Disputes between Germany, France and the US over the 2003 invasion of Iraq caused one of the worst crises in Nato history. The alliance itself played no part in the invasion although most member countries did. It has since agreed to assist in the training of Iraqi security forces.

However, since that invasion analysts perceive Nato to be shaping a new role for itself. Confirmation of that was seen when it took command of the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan in 2003. As the world becomes increasingly aware of the global terrorist threat, Nato officials now say the alliance must act to counter that threat.

Further evidence that the shift was continuing came shortly after the move into Afghanistan when the alliance launched a 9,000-strong rapid reaction force designed for swift deployment to troublespots anywhere in the world.

However, the reluctance of many Nato governments to supply reinforcements for the alliance's Afghan mission in the face of an ongoing insurgency in the south has raised questions about Nato's ability to sustain such large-scale operations.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...es/1549072.stm

Published: 2008/04/03 11: 03: 02 GMT

© BBC MMVIII
__________________
Regards

Aarwaa

Pakistan is ruled by three As - Army, America and Allah.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Saturday, April 12, 2008
Aarwaa's Avatar
Senior Member
CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CSS 2007Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Thanks: 141
Thanked 292 Times in 153 Posts
Aarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura about
Default

Is NATO Expansion Bad for Russia?


By Uffe Ellemann-Jensen & Andrei Liakhov

Wednesday, April 9, 2008


Russia's main argument against NATO enlargement is that it would threaten its security. That is nonsense, and Russia knows it.

But the Kremlin has found that behaving like a spoiled child gets results: the right to influence developments in former Soviet countries. In other words, Russia is being allowed to re-assert its sphere of influence -- a concept that should have been superceded by that of "Europe Whole and Free," which the entire European Union appeared to have embraced when communism collapsed.

But no: 1989 was not the end of history. History threatens to return.

European opponents of a Membership Action Plan for Ukraine and Georgia argue that neither country is ready for NATO membership. Too many question marks about their national unity are said to exist, too many internal conflicts linger, and their records on political and judicial reforms are supposedly dubious.

But the membership process does not imply an automatic right to NATO membership. On the contrary, Membership Action Plans would put heavy demands on Ukraine and Georgia. Both would have to answer a lot of difficult questions and convince others that they are able to live up to NATO's democratic requirements before being allowed to join.

Therefore, it would also be in Russia's interest to see such a process started. Russia has valid concerns regarding the huge Russian-speaking minorities in both countries, and these concerns are best dealt with in the framework of the Membership Action Plan process, where the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's very strict rules on treatment of minorities provide the benchmark.

Indeed, the process of the Membership Action Plan ensured protection for Russian minorities in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania -- all former Soviet republics that are now members of NATO.

The crux of the matter is Europe's lack of political will to forge a unified stand toward Russia. This has led the Kremlin to pursue a classic "divide-and-rule" strategy by tempting some big European countries into bilateral agreements -- particularly on energy issues -- that preclude a common EU position.

This is sad -- both for Russia and Europeans -- because it strengthens the hand of those in Moscow who want to pursue a policy of national pride rather than national interest, and it weakens the possibilities of establishing a real common European foreign and security policy.

But it is saddest for the countries that are once again being left out in the cold. NATO is supposed to be a beacon for countries struggling to establish democracy and freedom. The Bucharest summit suggests that the beacon has been switched off.


Uffe Ellemann-Jensen is the former foreign minister of Denmark.© Project Syndicate.


By Andrei Liakhov

Until 1991, NATO's primary goal was to contain the threat that was thought to originate from behind its Eastern borders. The goal now seems to be to move the eastern borders as far east as possible. This expansion enhances NATO's strategic defense forces, of which the United States is the main beneficiary. Washington also has detected a major opportunity to prevent Moscow from re-emerging as its rival through Cold War-like containment policies. NATO expansion is viewed by the United States as a key component in this policy.

Any NATO enlargement to include Georgia and Ukraine would inevitably lead to a new arms race in which Russia would clearly be the underdog. Russia has been deprived of much of the clout it had with the Soviet defense industry, particularly the missile research and development facilities based in Ukraine and the ability to mobilize substantial human and financial resources. Making Russia the underdog seems precisely the game that the United States is trying to play at the moment by pushing for Membership Action Plans for Ukraine and Georgia.

Another goal of encircling Russia is to control the export routes of its natural resources. NATO has added energy security to the list of its missions, and it may be interested in controlling Moscow's cash flows and influencing its economic development.

Having started to research the impact of energy supplies on national security much earlier than the West, Moscow has come to the conclusion that it must invest vast sums of money into diversifying export routes to maximize its earnings from hydrocarbon shipments. This became possible only after the meteoric rise in the price of hydrocarbons.

The policy of military and economic containment is ultimately directed at preventing Russia from emerging as a major international power.

Having experienced a history with lengthy periods of near isolation from the rest of the world, Russia could, in theory, survive a NATO encirclement. But the price that the Kremlin would pay to keep up with a new arms race and to safeguard its national interests would be very high.

The Kremlin might resort to former tried and true methods to counter a NATO expansion. The result would likely work against advancing democracy and civil society in the country. As during the Soviet period, a bloated defense budget probably would spark new social tensions. This would also mean that the Kremlin would take an even tougher stance toward the West, leading inevitably to a new Cold War.

We should be worried about NATO's intent to pursue the Membership Action Plan for Georgia and Ukraine. This will deal a serious blow to plans by President-elect Dmitry Medvedev and President Vladimir Putin to turn Russia into a democratic, prosperous state.


Andrei Liakhov, an adviser to the president of the Soviet Union from 1990 to 1991, is a London-based consultant.


© Copyright 2008 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.
__________________
Regards

Aarwaa

Pakistan is ruled by three As - Army, America and Allah.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Saturday, April 12, 2008
Aarwaa's Avatar
Senior Member
CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CSS 2007Medal of Appreciation: Awarded to appreciate member's contribution on forum. (Academic and professional achievements do not make you eligible for this medal) - Issue reason:
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Thanks: 141
Thanked 292 Times in 153 Posts
Aarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura aboutAarwaa has a spectacular aura about
Default

Outside View: NATO's pointless expansion


Published: April 2, 2008 at 3:53 PM


By ALEXANDER KHRAMCHIKHIN
UPI Outside View Commentator


MOSCOW, April 2 (UPI) -- NATO is expected to open its doors to Croatia, Macedonia and Albania at its summit this week in Bucharest, Romania.

The invitation to the three Balkan states will come as another manifestation of trends that set in with the end of the Cold War. The eastward extension of the bloc has entirely lost its military purpose, instead becoming an end in itself.

NATO lives to grow. Military might matters no longer. Eastern European countries that joined NATO in 1999 and 2004 are powerless to protect even themselves. They are security consumers. Old and new NATO members are steadily reducing their armed forces, so it has ever smaller means to defend an ever larger area. Things will become still worse with the extremely weak Albanian and Macedonian armies.

It is logical to assume that NATO continues to extend its borders for political ends alone -- to spread the European zone of liberty and democracy. NATO lost its original purpose in 1991. As any bureaucratic structure that loses its raison d'etre will do, the bloc shifted its priorities to self-preservation.

From this point on, eastward expansion became the priority for the Brussels bureaucrats running the alliance -- not for any security considerations, but because it provides them with a big job, for a long time. European security is no longer a priority, especially as nothing threatens it now. The new NATO members do not gain anything but the psychological satisfaction of belonging to the club of civilized nations and a soothing sense of security, even though they are safe as they are.

In fact, there is only one threat to Europe today and for the foreseeable future: drug trafficking from Afghanistan. Here, NATO's military incompetence is at its most striking. The alliance's contingent in Afghanistan is powerless against drug growers and smugglers.

We can only regret that Russia does not fully recognize these trends and clings instead to its Cold War phobias. NATO expansion not only lacks any apparent point but also boosts those phobias by fueling suspicions of an aggressive anti-Russian conspiracy. Be that as it may, even if the Balkan Three join NATO, Moscow will hardly raise objections, considering their apparent military weakness and geographic remoteness from the Russian border.

Moscow would take a much tougher stance if Georgia or, even worse, Ukraine joined the alliance. It would regard the move not merely as an invasion of Russia's long-established, if largely illusory, sphere of influence, but as downright aggression -- never mind the fact that expansion is not accompanied by an increase in military might.

If Ukraine and Georgia join NATO, the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe will totally lose its point and finally be buried, leaving Russia free to build up its forces west of the Urals. It might also put the final nail in the coffin of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.

As for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia will at the least pursue a policy of anything-but-recognition, if not simply recognize their independence. In this sense, the West did Russia a good turn by recognizing Kosovo. Western leaders proceed from double standards when they say that Kosovo is unique and does not establish a precedent. Common sense and international law alike ascribe the Abkhazians and South Ossetians the same right of self-determination as the Kosovars. So if Georgia joins NATO, it will put an end to its own territorial integrity, though Tbilisi appears to hope, on the contrary, that it will strengthen this integrity instead.

It is hard to say what Ukraine might gain from joining NATO besides a sense of belonging to the "civilized community." In fact, present-day Ukraine is an artificial heir to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic, with borders appointed at the arbitrary will and volition of Soviet rulers. The West appears to be blind to this. Ever since it gained independence, Ukraine has been divided mentally, politically and geographically. This divide deepens with each move on which the country's west and southeast have opposite views. Georgia may lose small autonomies on its outskirts if it joins NATO. Ukraine may jeopardize its very existence.

Further NATO expansion will not promote but torpedo European security -- not that the bureaucrats in Brussels and Washington appear to care.

--

(Alexander Khramchikhin, Ph.D., heads the analytical department of the Moscow-based Institute for Political and Military Analysis. A version of this article was first published by RIA Novosti, but the opinions expressed in it are the author's alone.)

--

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)



© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.


http://www.upi.com/International_Sec...xpansion/9736/
__________________
Regards

Aarwaa

Pakistan is ruled by three As - Army, America and Allah.

Last edited by Aarwaa; Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 01:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aarwaa For This Useful Post:
marwatone (Sunday, April 13, 2008), Muhammad Irfanullah (Saturday, June 28, 2008), Waseem Riaz Khan (Saturday, April 12, 2008)
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Int. Relation notes Predator International Relations 38 Saturday, March 02, 2019 07:28 AM
Oppose Military aggression by counter-aggression NATO vs. CSTO lmno250 News & Articles 0 Sunday, February 15, 2009 01:37 AM
Disband NATO. Silent Spectator News & Articles 0 Wednesday, August 13, 2008 09:07 AM
Warsa Pact,cento,setato,nato MUKHTIAR ALI International Relations 0 Tuesday, December 26, 2006 01:37 PM
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Muhammad Adnan General Knowledge, Quizzes, IQ Tests 0 Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:36 PM


CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.com.pk (unless CSSForum.com.pk is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.