#14
pravda.ru
January 8, 2003
What's Actual Difficulty with NATO Stand?
Recently PRAVDA.Ru got an e-mail from a reader who wanted to know the
attitude of Russia to the position of NATO. It seems that we must publish our
response to the reader on the front page of the site so that people could
clearly see why Russia dislikes or seldom likes the position of NATO.
The reader asked: "Your article left the reader wondering what was the
actual difficulty with the stand of NATO?"
This is our response to the question.
Hello Mr. Engelhart,
Thank you for the interest to our source. We'll try to give an answer to your
question concerning the position of NATO, the Prague Summit and subsequent
problems of Russia.
Just imagine yourself sitting at your farm; meanwhile, your neighbor, with
whom you are on rather good terms, got completely crazy about the idea that you
are planning to encroach upon his farm. You are trying to persuade him that
nothing of this kind is on your mind, but all is in vain (the neighbor is as
stubborn as an ass). And even more: the neighbor calls a group of warriors from
a nearby fort, the latter come and set up a camp on the territory of the
neighboring farm. The neighbor has gone mad because of this happiness, but the
man slightly realizes how much his crazy shady enterprise may cost (maintenance
of a group of warriors costs a lot). Let's proceed. You get very unhappy because
of such neighborhood (you cannot sleep because of screams of drunk and raging
soldiers, which certainly make you reluctant to make it up with the neighbor at
all). You become suspicious and aggressive and consider everyone to be your
enemy. Following the example of the neighbor, you are getting armed. No, there
will be no war; but it is going to be such a violent struggle for peace that it
won't leave a stone standing.
It is certainly a joke, but many a true word is spoken in jest.
To tell earnestly, NATO is the result of the cold war. Its main objective is
to fight against the USSR. There is no Soviet Union any more, however, the
product of the war hasn't gone together with the USSR, on the contrary it is
even expanding. This fact is confirmed by the Prague summit, where nine more
members were admitted into the alliance, including the three Baltic republics
(Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia).
A reasonable question arises: why do these states (and other countries
striving to become NATO members) want to become affiliated into the alliance so
strongly? The answer is simple: they want to guarantee their own security. But
what are the enemies to defend themselves from? Is there anyone in Europe who
threatens the territorial integrity or independence of these states? There is no
threat of this kind and it is unlikely to arise.
The NATO leadership emphasized several times that expansion of the alliance
posed no danger to Russia. Why do NATO experts so actively inspect the military
bases created on the territory of the Baltic states in the Soviet era? Why, if
NATO expansion doesn't threaten Russia?
We are often said that NATO expansion will create more effective structures
for struggle with the international terrorism, which is said to be the
top-priority objective for the time being. The problem is very important indeed.
But NATO is a military alliance; meanwhile, special services, not the army must
fight with terrorism. When army is involved in fighting with terrorism, it is
like bringing an elephant in a china shop. Certainly, Israel, Chechnya and
Afghanistan are exceptions from the rule. In these regions, terrorists have
created real armies, with which special units cannot cope. They won't be able to
cope with them until the basic forces of the terrorists are liquidated.
One more detail. Who in NATO and how is supposed to take a decision
concerning use of military force? What will be the criteria for making such
decisions? Who may guarantee that states outside the alliance will be insured
against mistakes made by the NATO leadership? The events in Yugoslavia in 1999
may serve a vivid example to this. We won't mention whether the bombing was
rightful, as Russia's position concerning the problem is well known. We would
like to mention the thing that provoked the attacks: it was alleged that the
government of Slobodan Milosevic started repressions against Albanians in Kosovo.
What was the result of it? The ethnic cleansing continued, but this time Serbs
and Albanians have exchanged the roles. Is it more fair?
In conclusion we would like to get back to the history. Do you remember the
Caribbean crisis when the Soviet Union stationed missiles with nuclear warheads
in Cuba? The US's reaction to this fact is also known perfectly well: the world
was on the brink of war. However, the USSR just wanted to guarantee its
security. If Americans stationed their missiles in Turkey, close to the USSR
borders, why couldn't the Soviet Union do the same in Cuba? Now the history may
repeat once again.
The NATO leadership provided no guarantees that no weapons of mass
destruction would be stationed near the Russian borders. Certainly, the problem
can be currently discussed just theoretically. But the reality of the politics
is such that even extremely fantastic theories may come true.
Oleg Artyukov
Dmitry Litvinovich
PRAVDA.Ru
BACK TO THE TOP  #239 CONTENTS NEXT ARTICLE
|
