#14
Komsomolskaya Pravda
Nos. 58-59
April 2003
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
DEFENCE MINISTER SERGEI IVANOV ABOUT IRAQ, UN, NATO AND THE RUSSIAN ARMY
The Iraqi War

Question: What conclusions is the Defence Ministry drawing from the Iraqi war?

Answer: We are closely watching the hostilities, noting everything we may use for the development of the Russian army and its weapons. We are also drawing military-political conclusions because this conflict has reminded us that Russia has only two reliable allies - its army and navy. When international security system is splitting, the army and navy must ensure reliable defence of the seventh part of the world's dry land in any situation.

Question: The Americans keep saying that the operation is proceeding successfully. Do you believe them?

Answer: No war in human history proceeded according to plan, without casualties, mistakes and miscalculations. Besides, it may seem strange but the Iraqis are waging a successful information warfare without which not even minor conflicts can do.

Question: Yet it appears that Iraq will soon crumble, as few countries can withstand such military pressure.

Answer: This depends not on the Iraqis but on what the Americans dare to do. If they launch carpet bombing, Iraq will not last long. But the political disadvantages of such a decision would be tremendous. But the outcome is not clear if the Americans decide to keep fighting "accurately," as they are doing now, without engaging in major battles. The Iraqi army is rather strong and it has not started fighting yet.

Question: As far as we know, the Soviet Union supplied over 200 Grad multiple-launch rocket systems to Iraq in the 1980s. But these formidable weapons have not been used so far. Why?

Answer: We don't know about Iraq as much as many people think we do. We were not very close in the past ten years. Russia honoured the international sanctions and reduced its presence in Iraq to a minimum. It was impossible to tour the Iraqi units and check the presence of the Grad systems. Hypothetically, I can assume that a part of these systems is still intact, as they are not tabooed. They have been most probably delivered to the republican guards who will defend Baghdad. This is common logic.

Question: Neither is Iraq using its aircraft.

Answer: I don't think it has any left. In 1991 the Americans focused on the destruction of Iraqi aircraft. Even if the Iraqis had any MiG-21s now, using them would be suicidal, as the Americans would down them immediately.

Question: What is your opinion of the US actions from a military viewpoint? The Americans are avoiding cities because they fear losses but eventually they will have to occupy Basra. How well will they be doing?

Answer: I can understand the Americans' logic: they need to liquidate Saddam as soon as possible. Their goal is Saddam and not Basra, which will not hinder them from striving for their key target.

Question: Why did not the Russian warships go to the Indian Ocean?

Answer: The date for the cruise was not announced. That the ships have not begun the cruise does not mean they will not do it this year.

Question: Do they need to go there at all? Answer: Where?

Question: To the conflict zone. Answer: I have answered this question five times already. We don't need to send our warships to the Persian Gulf, but we do need to send them to the Indian Ocean. There are some problems in the ocean we need to attend to. This is why the ships of the Pacific and Black Sea fleets will be dispatched there. It is said frequently that the Russian Navy has been anchored, with the seamen losing their skills. Why not do something about it? The fulfilment of the planned major task of combat training has no offensive goals; it is not directed against the states that border on this region. Moreover, I do not exclude the possibility that our warships will hold joint training sessions with, say, the Indian Navy.

Question: The US onslaught is mind-boggling, with a thousand flights made every day and carrier based aircraft taking off several times a day. But the Russian military experts claim that they have already used a half of their munitions. In another 10-15 days of such intensive use, the Americans will run out of sea-launched cruise missiles and their aircraft carriers will use up their resources and will have to go back home for routine maintenance and replenishment. Even the Americans cannot keep up this fast pace. Answer: No comment.

The UN and NATO

Question: Will Russia offer its mediation for the settlement of the Iraqi crisis?

Answer: Frankly speaking, I don't envisage such a possibility. The Americans will not discuss the situation as long as Saddam remains in power. This would not be acceptable to them, as the war has been launched to get rid of Saddam.

Question: Can Saddam leave?

Answer: Why should he? He has not left before and he will certainly not leave now that the aggression has been launched. He may decide to do it if something changes in the situation - there are several possible variants - but not now.

Question: Can the UN Security Council influence the USA in any way?

Answer: No. This is what worried us from the very beginning and this is why we have taken our stand on Iraq before the beginning of the war. Frankly speaking, Saddam is not a friend or brother to us and he will never repay his debts to us. This is not the point. What matters is the precedent that has been created. Today the USA does not like Iraq and tomorrow it may turn on Syria, Iran, North Korea or any other country.

Question: Will the UN survive this loss of face?

Answer: It may, formally. I mean that conditions will be created by the agreement of the world's leading countries for its resurrection. But actually, the UN will not rise. As for reforming the UN, we are aware of the relevant US plans, which entail the creation of a Security Council that would not be able to block anything or play the key role. We do not need such UN.

Question: But the world needs a place for exchanging opinions.

Answer: It will be no more than a talking place and the Americans will say: OK, you have talked enough and now you will do as we say. We cannot accept this.

Question: NATO Secretary General George Robertson said recently that you will have a hot line for direct communication soon. Do you have such a hot line to the Americans, for example national security adviser Condoleezza Rice or Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld? Do you feel any change in their attitude to Russia after it has taken such a harsh stand on the Iraqi issue?

Answer: There is no hot line to George Robertson yet and we use ordinary telephone lines in case of need. A secret telephone line is stipulated for contacts with Donald Rumsfeld and both an open and a secret line for contacts with Ms Rice. We talk regularly. They had been notified about Russia's stand on Iraq and so its official proclamation was not a surprise to them. I wouldn't say that the attitude of US officials to Russia has changed seriously after the beginning of the conflict. On the other hand, there have been allegations about the delivery of Russian-made weapons to Iraq and that strange U-2 story...

Insidious Americans

Question: Why do the Americans send their U-2 reconnaissance planes to us?

Answer: There have been four such flights, three of them in the direct proximity (20-25 km) to the Russo-Georgian border. Our air defence systems registered all of them and fighters were ordered into the air. But this is a technicality. The main thing is that we cannot understand why they are doing this, in particular in view of the situation around Iraq.

We cannot be satisfied with the US explanations. The USA cited the struggle against terrorism in Georgia as the reason for the flights, but I can tell you that it is impossible to fight terrorism with U-2s. That plane flies at an altitude of 18-20 kilometres and you know that it is sometimes impossible to detect terrorists hiding in forests or in the mountains from a specially equipped helicopter flying at an altitude of a hundred metres. It's sheer nonsense trying to see them from the altitude of 20 kilometres.

It is apparently impossible to see from such altitude the terrorists who make toxic agents in their caves. So, we cannot accept the US reasoning and have asked the Americans to explain why they make these flights.

Question: What can the Russian leadership do in reply to the possible redeployment of US military bases from the "treacherous" Germany to the loyal Poland? What if nuclear missiles are deployed close to Brest?

Answer: Nothing has been done yet and no decisions have been made. Russia is aware of these US plans. We will monitor the development of the situation and demand from the NATO countries, including Poland, strict compliance with the obligations sealed in Russia-NATO agreements and the CFE treaty. We have the right to take requisite counter-measures to ensure our national security if the Americans redeploy their bases after all.

A Foreign Legion in Russia?

Question: Is it true that the generals have convinced you to put off the military reform?

Answer: No, this is just an ordinary attack of the election campaign disease in some of our politicians. Some SPS members claim that the military do not want the reform. They suggest a simple and attractive - to the laymen - idea of a six month-long conscription service. This reminds me of the post-revolution anarchists, who said: "No peace, no war, no army." To begin with, our units of permanent readiness have not been manned with contract servicemen yet. The process will begin in the North Caucasian Military District and I mean not just the Defence Ministry units, but also border guards and other formations.

Question: It has been reported that you plan to get recruits from the other CIS countries. Does this mean that Russia will have a kind of the French Foreign Legion?

Answer: The thing is that Russia has the world's largest territory.

Question: Vladimir Kryuchkov, former director of the Soviet KGB, said recently that Russia boasts 40% of the world's raw materials, 14% of territory and only 2% of population.

Answer: Hence one of our basic problems: where to take enough young people to defend this wealth? So a decision has been made in principle to recruit volunteers from the CIS.

Do We Need Tanks?

Question: When will we make the breakthrough in modernising our armaments?

Answer: It is one more myth that the army does not get novel weapons. Besides, we do not always need novel weapons. Last year we overhauled and sent back to the troops 131 helicopters.

Question: But they had been on combat duty for years.

Answer: So what? The Americans are using B-52s produced 30 years ago to bomb Iraq. It is not the production date that matters but modernisation. Regular maintenance and repairs and provision of latest avionics -- weapons control, communications, fire control and reconnaissance systems -- to aircraft and warships cost half the price of the production of new systems.

Question: Does this mean that we do not need new tanks either?

Answer: Can you imagine a modern war with tanks? A Battle of Kursk of the 21st century?

Question: And why not?

Answer: We need absolutely different weapons. We still live by stereotypes, believing that we should prepare for war as we were taught in the past. But life, in particular the experience of Chechnya and Iraq, lays bare this belief.

Question: Is there a grain of truth in the US accusations against Russia of military deliveries to Iraq or is this ordinary propaganda?

Answer: It is propaganda. I can recall similar accusations with regard to Iran. They were used only when the Americans either needed to put pressure on Russia or get something in return. The same goes for the alleged Russian deliveries of jammers for the confusion of electronic guidance systems to Iraq.

There was a facility in Iran about which the Americans and we knew but kept this knowledge secret. When the Americans needed to put pressure on Iran, they showed satellite photos. An IAEA commission with Russian representatives went there and saw gas centrifuges that could enrich uranium to a weapons-grade state. Those were pilot facilities that could be quickly improved for industrial production with a few additional supplies. That equipment belongs to the British-Dutch-German uranium enrichment concern Urenco. Today the problem of Iraq has overshadowed this problem, but it will be a loud and long scandal.

Question: Did we do right to leave Cam Ranh and Lourdes bases?

Answer: Absolutely. The use of the Lourdes base cost us 200 million dollars a year. It is true that Cuba owes us 20 billion dollars but when we raise the question they look surprised, pretending not to understand. Cuba will never repay this debt. But we kept pumping money into the Lourdes base and what did we get from it? The base was built in the 1960s as a tracking station. It was a different world and the base brought practical information results. Almost half a century has passed. A logical question arises: Do we need today what was good 40 years ago? And do we need it for $200 million a year? Maybe we could put the money to some other, better use? Both the GRU (military intelligence) and the General Staff gave their unequivocal conclusions on the matter.

As for Cam Ranh, in the past 15 years everything that could be stolen there was stolen and the rest broke down. The base was actually used for refuelling our ships but they called at it only two or three times in the past ten years. The Pacific Fleet is sending a group of ships to the region now, but we will add a tanker to the group or the ships will refuel in some Vietnamese port. I see no problem here.

BACK TO THE TOP    #251 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE