#9
Sergey Karaganov on Russian Prospects in Antiterrorist Coalition, NATO

Trud
October 20, 2001
[translation for personal use only]
Interview with Sergey Aleksandrovich Karaganov, deputy director of Europe Institute and chairman of Foreign and Defense Policy Council Presidium,
by Marina Chernukha, personal correspondent; place and date not given: "Coinciding Interests"

According to this man, Russia eventually would have had to do what the Americans are doing in Afghanistan anyway. The events of 11 September were a tragic shock for the Americans and represented the start of the countdown for the U.S. "crusade" against international terrorism. Prominent Russian politician, Deputy Director of the Europe Institute, and Chairman of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council Presidium Sergey Karaganov shared his thoughts about Russia's role and place in the international antiterrorist coalition with Trud correspondent Marina Chernukha.

[Chernukha] Sergey Aleksandrovich, can you say unequivocally that Russia supports the U.S. stance in the fight against international terrorism? Do the interests of our countries coincide completely?

[Karaganov] At this time the interests of the Russia and the United States certainly do coincide, and that is why we are giving it all types of support, with the exception of direct military support. We may differ in some of our judgments, but in principle there is a sound basis for our presently coinciding interests. This is a unique situation, in which the Americans are fighting for Russia's interests as well as their own. The Taliban have posed a genuine threat to us in recent years by supporting Chechnya and constantly instigating armed conflicts on the border with Tajikistan. It is highly probable, therefore, that in about two years Russian soldiers would have had to do what the Americans are doing for us now. We still have to guard our own geopolitical interests closely in Central Asia in the present situation, of course, realizing that there are no "good" options in the fight against terrorism and stability, because war is war. Our current ability to transfer much of the burden of this war from our shoulders to someone else's, however, is extremely important to Russia. Obviously, we have no intention of "sitting back and doing nothing." Russia is providing the international coalition with extremely important intelligence, which could even be described as invaluable intelligence because no one else has it. We have also provided it with information, based on our own experience, on the most effective and ineffective methods of warfare in Afghanistan. We are supplying the Northern Alliance with weapons and giving it other types of support. Russia does not, however, want to participate directly in a ground operation under any circumstances. That is something I can say unequivocally.

[Chernukha] If the interests of our countries coincide at this time, can the present relationship between Russia and the United States be described as what some people call a "tactical partnership"?

[Karaganov] Not only tactical, but also strategic, because our interests now coincide in such a broad range of areas. These include the non-expansion of the "nuclear club," the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the exercise of stricter control over international processes threatening to become uncontrollable, the deterrence of the regional arms races that are currently under way.... Russia is ready to solve these problems and others in conjunction with civilized countries. Furthermore, our country now theoretically has a chance of joining NATO. Members of the North Atlantic alliance are discussing this prospect now. It is still somewhat frightening to the NATO generals because it would bring about qualitative changes in the whole philosophy of the bloc. It would turn NATO into a military-political organization of an international nature, and its actions would no longer be aimed against Russia. On the contrary, our country could make a contribution to the reinforcement of world stability. This is still, I repeat, only a theoretical possibility, but it cannot be discounted, because the advantages of NATO membership for Russia would outweigh the disadvantages.

[Chernukha] Could this really happen after we fought so hard against the expansion of NATO?

[Karaganov] The situation has changed radically. After 10 years of euphoria, we have entered a new and extremely dangerous world. The end of the "cold war" and the elimination of the threat of nuclear annihilation--which never really existed, because the system of mutual deterrence was so strong--created a false sense of security. We were fighting with NATO, the West was accusing Russia of restricting the rights and liberties of the Chechens, and no one realized that the world had become much less stable and much more dangerous, and that almost all of the main threats were not where we had assumed they were. All of this could have a sobering effect, because the whole geopolitical picture of the world is changing, and terrorism is only one of the new danger signs. I hope that Russia and the West will reach a consensus and form a lasting alliance as a result of this situation.

[Chernukha] Will the West, and America in particular, stop accusing Russia of excessive brutality toward the Chechen "freedom fighters"?

[Karaganov] The West was "pressuring" Russia over Chechnya for two reasons. First of all, it was simply a fine source of political leverage. Second, we were criticized for using methods of warfare in Chechnya that had been obsolete in Europe, for example, for 50-100 years.

History repeats itself, however. Now, after the bombing raids on Afghanistan, the Americans and the English have lost the moral right to criticize Russia. Furthermore, Vladimir Putin's decision to "link" the problem of Chechnya with the problem of international terrorism was logical and correct, because Chechnya is a country of pre-existent terrorism. The fact that the world still does not have a precise definition of the term "terrorism" is a different matter, and people have not learned that terrorists essentially are committing crimes against the interests of all mankind by setting up so many nonviable states, which are devoid of law and order and which have become a source of constant danger by inciting wars.

Both Russia and the United States must realize that terrorism has extremely deep roots, stemming from social, economic, and political circumstances. That is why it must be combated not only and not so much by military actions, as by better social policy and interaction on the level of crime-fighting agencies, customs services, intelligence agencies, and police forces. In short, we need a new security system, completely different from anything we had before. Actually, this is something we can do in the future. At this time, it is important for Russia to make use of this unique opportunity to reclaim its rightful position in the international coalition of developed countries against the challenges of the 21st century. The fact that the leader in this process will be the United States instead of Russia is not important. The United States has greater resources. Although Russia will not play a leading role, it nevertheless can, by virtue of historical factors and the distinctive features of its geographic location, play a much more significant role in this process than its own capabilities would allow.

BACK TO THE TOP    #177 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION