Englannin lyhennelmä
Lähetetty: 19.05.2007 14:12
Väänsin englannin lyhennelmän jonkun natokenraalin artikkelista koskien balttian maiden ja naton suhteita, ja rupesin funtsimaan että onkohan tuossa paljon kielioppivirheitä kun en osaa pilkkusääntöjä tai SPOTPA-kakkelia laisinkaan. Jos joku jaksaa lukea ja korjata niin kiitän ja kumarran. Aluperäinen teksti löytyy tuolta: http://www.bdcol.ee/fileadmin/docs/bdre ... bdr601.pdf
Since the early days of the 21st century, the security officials around the world, and not at the least NATO, have discussed of the growing presence of asymmetrical threats. Asymmetric, described commonly as a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal power interact and attempt to take advantage of their opponents' weaknesses, reflects as an antithesis to the military balance or symmetrical relations between Warsaw Union and NATO during the cold war.
The first worldwide asymmetric hostile action was in September of 2001, when Al-Qaeda (allegedly) flew two airplanes in the twin towers in Manhattan, NY. (According to wikipedia, also for example the colonial wars of Great Britain filled the description of asymmetric warfare, in power-relations at least. / writers note)
Nevertheless, the 9/11 caused changes in both national and international security paradigms all over the world. Although national intelligence officials are solely responsible for finding and terminating illegal terrorist cells inside the national borders, international co-operation (and interoperability) has emerged as one of the most important factors in building peace. However, official agencies, national or international, can only do much, as they are dependent on the support of the civilian community. This fact makes it extremely important that all peace-loving communities isolate fundamentalist groups out of their presence.
Under the 5th article of the former WEU, NATO was naturally obliged to countermeasures after one of its members was attacked. The problem with the whole counteract is that NATO, as an organisation, has been founded, equipped and managed against symmetrical threats. This makes it extremely hard for most NATO members to participate in actions against asymmetric threats. Therefore, most of the present and future nations in NATO are considered less and less responsible for the defence of other countries, beginning from problems with national sovereignty and foreign troops on nation’s terrain, continuing with the poor condition and low amount of equipment capable of global interaction, eventually ending to the issues of sharing military intelligence between countries – allied or not.
The Total Defence Concept, developed by the Nordic states during the cold war against the threat of massive infiltration by Russia, has been rebirth again. The Total Defence Concept is basically a tool to mobilize nation’s resources in whole, including human resources as well as economical and material aid. Imbued properly in some scale, this could balance the instability between NATO’s member countries and improve the readiness to answer to the threats of asymmetric nature.
The Baltic States, although formed by three different countries, is viewed preferably as one geopolitical entity. It must be noted that the joining itself could still face unsolvable problems, like financial issues, legislative issues, conscription, training systems, procurement or balancing requirements for Article 5 against Non-Article 5. Also, all of the three countries must make their own decisions whether to even consider joining NATO, and find out where they get the most benefit with the least amount of economical restrain. If the Baltic States decide to join NATO, they will participate in the NATO command chain and decision making processes, the portion of their influence being correlated with their participation with the defence costs. Also, joining NATO would place the Baltic States in the international military staff, and the NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.
In the land forces, the Baltic States could gain military assistance primarily from the Reaction Corps Centre in Heidelberg, Germany. Considering the level of the Baltic Forces, the more interoperable troops would in that case be the Multinational Corps Northeast in Szczecin, Poland. Naval expertise concerning the Baltic States would be benefited by the Allied Naval Forces in UK, but interning officers in Danish Task Group would also be a good idea. Nearest considerable Air Forces base would be the Air Forces North in Ramstein, Germany, but an officer’s position in Combined Air Operations Centre would be also extremely valuable.
The Baltic Battalion, if deployed, would fit excellently to the Danish Reaction Brigade. That would make the Battalion a contribution for the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, which is a part of the 1st UK Division. Baltic navies would participate mostly in mine counter-measures, even to the state where the Baltic States would be responsible for the naval mine defence in the Baltic Sea. Until that time they will most probably only participate in multilateral exercises regarding the PfP.
Because of the multilateral nature of NATO, consisting from only a couple of solely national groups, it is important that all of the states find ways to integrate their standard operational procedures and instructions to the NATO’s equivalent. Most disturbing contradiction between the Alliance and Baltic States would compose of Air Defence. The Baltic States are lacking sufficient radar equipment, not to mention the low amount of interceptors and air superiority fighters. The training of pilots would also probably demand multilateral exercises and training exchanges, which might cause legislative problems on national level.
Since the early days of the 21st century, the security officials around the world, and not at the least NATO, have discussed of the growing presence of asymmetrical threats. Asymmetric, described commonly as a military situation in which two belligerents of unequal power interact and attempt to take advantage of their opponents' weaknesses, reflects as an antithesis to the military balance or symmetrical relations between Warsaw Union and NATO during the cold war.
The first worldwide asymmetric hostile action was in September of 2001, when Al-Qaeda (allegedly) flew two airplanes in the twin towers in Manhattan, NY. (According to wikipedia, also for example the colonial wars of Great Britain filled the description of asymmetric warfare, in power-relations at least. / writers note)
Nevertheless, the 9/11 caused changes in both national and international security paradigms all over the world. Although national intelligence officials are solely responsible for finding and terminating illegal terrorist cells inside the national borders, international co-operation (and interoperability) has emerged as one of the most important factors in building peace. However, official agencies, national or international, can only do much, as they are dependent on the support of the civilian community. This fact makes it extremely important that all peace-loving communities isolate fundamentalist groups out of their presence.
Under the 5th article of the former WEU, NATO was naturally obliged to countermeasures after one of its members was attacked. The problem with the whole counteract is that NATO, as an organisation, has been founded, equipped and managed against symmetrical threats. This makes it extremely hard for most NATO members to participate in actions against asymmetric threats. Therefore, most of the present and future nations in NATO are considered less and less responsible for the defence of other countries, beginning from problems with national sovereignty and foreign troops on nation’s terrain, continuing with the poor condition and low amount of equipment capable of global interaction, eventually ending to the issues of sharing military intelligence between countries – allied or not.
The Total Defence Concept, developed by the Nordic states during the cold war against the threat of massive infiltration by Russia, has been rebirth again. The Total Defence Concept is basically a tool to mobilize nation’s resources in whole, including human resources as well as economical and material aid. Imbued properly in some scale, this could balance the instability between NATO’s member countries and improve the readiness to answer to the threats of asymmetric nature.
The Baltic States, although formed by three different countries, is viewed preferably as one geopolitical entity. It must be noted that the joining itself could still face unsolvable problems, like financial issues, legislative issues, conscription, training systems, procurement or balancing requirements for Article 5 against Non-Article 5. Also, all of the three countries must make their own decisions whether to even consider joining NATO, and find out where they get the most benefit with the least amount of economical restrain. If the Baltic States decide to join NATO, they will participate in the NATO command chain and decision making processes, the portion of their influence being correlated with their participation with the defence costs. Also, joining NATO would place the Baltic States in the international military staff, and the NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe.
In the land forces, the Baltic States could gain military assistance primarily from the Reaction Corps Centre in Heidelberg, Germany. Considering the level of the Baltic Forces, the more interoperable troops would in that case be the Multinational Corps Northeast in Szczecin, Poland. Naval expertise concerning the Baltic States would be benefited by the Allied Naval Forces in UK, but interning officers in Danish Task Group would also be a good idea. Nearest considerable Air Forces base would be the Air Forces North in Ramstein, Germany, but an officer’s position in Combined Air Operations Centre would be also extremely valuable.
The Baltic Battalion, if deployed, would fit excellently to the Danish Reaction Brigade. That would make the Battalion a contribution for the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, which is a part of the 1st UK Division. Baltic navies would participate mostly in mine counter-measures, even to the state where the Baltic States would be responsible for the naval mine defence in the Baltic Sea. Until that time they will most probably only participate in multilateral exercises regarding the PfP.
Because of the multilateral nature of NATO, consisting from only a couple of solely national groups, it is important that all of the states find ways to integrate their standard operational procedures and instructions to the NATO’s equivalent. Most disturbing contradiction between the Alliance and Baltic States would compose of Air Defence. The Baltic States are lacking sufficient radar equipment, not to mention the low amount of interceptors and air superiority fighters. The training of pilots would also probably demand multilateral exercises and training exchanges, which might cause legislative problems on national level.