#16
Nezavisimoye Voennoye Obozreniye
No. 42
December 2002
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
IS NATO EXPANSION REALLY HARMLESS FOR RUSSIA?

During its November summit in Prague, NATO invited Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania to join the bloc. Immediately afterwards, presidents Bush and Putin met in Tsarskoye Selo outside St. Petersburg. Vladimir Putin discussed recent developments with a group of veterans of the Soviet armed forces. At the meeting, Army General Valentin Varennikov, former commander-in-chief of the Land Force, expressed the veterans' support for the president's foreign and domestic policy stating that "We support your view on NATO expansion and agree that it is not a cause for concern." However, opinions on this issue vary. Colonel-General Leonid IVASHOV, vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems and a fierce opponent of the bloc's expansion, whom a considerable number of officers and generals of the Russian army support, shared his views with Igor KOROTCHENKO.

Question: The Prague summit approved a decision on the next stage of NATO expansion. Will this lead to any geopolitical changes in the Euro-Atlantic sector or is this just a "technicality" of the bloc's operation?

Answer: It is certainly not a technicality. The invitation to seven countries to join NATO represents the next stage in the strategy of turning the bloc into a global military monster, an instrument of war for attaining global domination and suppressing all civilisations that are not Western.

It is no coincidence that US ideologists that advocate a war between civilisations have staked their hopes on NATO, which, they believe, will eventually replace the UN. In working to implement the new strategic concept adopted in Washington in April 1999, NATO has been persistently "acquiring" new territories. Its very name, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is no longer accurate, since NATO now has bases in Central Asia, is increasing its military and political presence in the Caucasus and is stubbornly trying to expand into the Arab East by means of the Mediterranean dialogue. NATO is also expanding in the direction of China and South East Asia.

We cannot deny that NATO is gradually gaining control of European and international organisations, so that now it controls the OSCE, the EU, the Barents Regional Council, the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, as well as other organisations.

Therefore, the decisions made at the Prague summit were part of a policy to re-carve the geopolitical space in which Russia holds the central position. Russia is losing its positions as a result of influence. It is being pushed out of a zone of its vital interests and losing its allies in the CIS and under the Collective Security Treaty. In fact, it is being left alone confronted by a consolidated military-political organisation, i.e. NATO. The establishment of NATO bases in Central Asia has engendered China's concern and mistrust for Russia and has shattered the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Flirting with George Bush has undermined Moscow's prestige in the Arab East and Europe. The geopolitical consequences for Russia could be almost catastrophic.

Question: And what will be the military consequences of NATO's expansion?

Answer: Russian military analysts and their colleagues from the foreign ministry, special services and the Security Council seriously considered NATO's intentions, and closely observed the expansion of its military capabilities and the changes to its strategic concepts. They came to the logical conclusion that the bloc and its expansion present a military threat to the Russian Federation. That conclusion is formalised in the National Security Concept and the Military Doctrine of Russia. I would like to emphasize that this is not an emotional attitude but a conclusion based on a sober analysis of facts.

Let's look at the facts. The first stage of expansion reinforced the bloc, with the addition of five army divisions, 500 combat planes, 50 warships, some 3,000 tanks and over 5,000 artillery systems as a result of the admission of new members.

The second (current) stage of expansion will add 45 army brigades, some 500 warplanes, and 3,000 tanks, around 50 warships and over 100 combat helicopters to the bloc in peacetime. The bloc's supreme command plan to increase NATO forces by nearly 50% in the event of war.

The admission of new members is complemented by the growth of the bloc's military activity. NATO held 600 war games in 1997, 670 in 1998, 722 in 1999, 806 in 2000 and 820 in 2001. Over 80% of them were held in order to train staff and troops for traditional military operations, including those carried out beyond the bloc's zone of responsibility. This year for the first time since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO held a large-scale military exercise that involved pre-emptive nuclear strikes in direct proximity to the Russian borders.

The military infrastructure of NATO is being strengthened and from its outposts in Poland, Hungary and the Czech republic, it is moving eastwards. Even civilian airfields are being prepared to carry combat and transport aircraft. In all, NATO plans to use 120 forward-based airfields in Europe. In the past four years, active efforts have been taken to modernise and build up the military infrastructure of the Baltic countries. Today NATO aircraft taking off from airfields in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia can reach Russian facilities east of the Volga. In view of the modernisation of Georgian airfields in accordance with NATO standards and the readiness of Kazakhstan to allow its three airfields to be used by the bloc, the projection of NATO's military power base could split the Russian air space into four sectors: north-eastern, western, southern and eastern.

At the same time, the CFE Treaty limits possibilities for Russia to deploy weapons and military hardware in the flank zones, while the new NATO members have no such obligations.

Question: Could Russia have prevented these developments?

Answer: For a start, Russia did not even try to do so, not even to prevent the admission of the Baltic countries to NATO, though it could have done a great deal. Politically, the USA needs Russia to support its counter-terrorist operation. Europe, which fears a rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, quickly offered Russia a pacifier in the form of the Council of Twenty. Russia's chances in the Western direction were augmented by dynamic processes within the framework of the Shanghai Six and improving relations with Iran, the Arab world and India.

There are several unresolved territorial and border problems between Russia and the Baltic countries. These countries lost their legitimate claim to certain sectors of the territories transferred to them by the Soviet Union after the Second World War when they became free countries following their secession from the USSR. Russia as the legal successor of the Soviet Union had a right to raise this issue. Regrettably, we missed our chance politically.

Russia could also use instruments of economic control to prevent NATO expansion. Oil, gas, electricity and transportation networks should not be a source of mind-boggling profit for a small group of businessmen and officials. Above all they should be political instruments for protecting national interests.

And the military element could also play its part. Had Moscow raised the question of withdrawal from CFE limitations on weaponry and hardware in the flank zones, the strengthening of the Kaliningrad group of forces, the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in areas of NATO advancement in close proximity to Russia's borders, and the creation of a joint defence bridgehead with Belarus, this would have had a sobering effect on NATO strategists. This would be especially true if Moscow had acted comprehensively and systematically in formulating a strategic plan of protection from the west for its security interests.

The calls for broader cooperation with NATO and the idea of joining the bloc raise many questions to which there are no answers. Firstly, there has been no genuine cooperation only fine words. I do not remember a single instance since 1997 when Russia's security concerns have been respected.

Secondly, our refusal to resist and our fruitless cooperation with NATO encouraged the admission of the Baltic countries and will yet open the NATO door to Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and others.

And thirdly, Russia itself will never be admitted to the bloc. Because the Americans need Russia only as a minor player in their game against Europe, China, the Islamic world, Belarus and the integration processes in the CIS.

BACK TO THE TOP    #236 CONTENTS