#13 - RW 281
RIA Novosti
November 5, 2003
NATO-RUSSIA: TOO MANY WORDS, TOO FEW DEEDS
Viktor LITOVKIN, RIA Novosti military analyst

"What Kind of NATO Does Russia Need, If At All" is the name of a conference
that has been held at the Metropol Hotel in Moscow.

NATO Secretary General George Robertson believes that NATO-Russia relations
have considerably improved in the past few years and especially after the
signing of the Rome Declaration on the creation of the NATO-Russia Council.
But Russian speakers at the conference did not share this view.

State Duma vice-speaker Vladimir Lukin pointed out that Russian society was
not prepared to view NATO as a genuine partner, and not because of
stereotypes and backward thinking. The thing is that the bloc's policy is
full of ambiguities and its eastward enlargement is only one of them. In
Lukin's opinion, enlargement has not improved the security of, for example,
the Czech Republic or Hungary, which had not been threatened anyway.

On the contrary, the decision-making system and relations within NATO have
become more complicated and this problem has not been resolved to this day,
said Lukin. A recent example is the operation against Iraq, which showed
that the bloc's decisions are made not in Brussels but in Washington. Hence
the other contradictions, which leave a large measure of scepticism in
NATO-Russia relations.

Academician Alexander Nekipelov supported Lukin. He drew the attention of
conference participants to the fact that radar stations are mushrooming on
Russia's borders, for example in the Baltic countries. These radars are
used to monitor everything that goes on in European Russia all the way to
Moscow. Contrary to the provisions of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, the USA
is creating military bases in Poland and moving 42,000 troops to Russia's
borders. The argument that this has nothing to do with NATO does not hold
water, as everything is done on a bilateral basis and it is clearly cheaper
for the Pentagon to have troops on the Vistula than on the Oder.

Speakers also criticised NATO's policy with regard to some Baltic
countries, where Russian speakers are discriminated against, Russian
schools are closed and monuments to nazi SS troops are erected (the latter
would be utterly against state policy in the rest of Europe). But Brussels
pretends that the problem does not exist. Its non-interference in these
processes only encourages nationalist anti-Russian sentiments in Latvia and
Estonia.

Ambassador Gunther Altenburg, deputy secretary general of NATO for
political matters, tried to assuage the concerns of Russian participants.
He said the bloc did not rely on steel armies or tank armadas any longer;
its current goal is to create rapid deployment and reaction forces that can
be quickly moved to a region where stability and security are threatened,
so that they can launch peacekeeping and anti-terrorist operations.

In this sense, the goals and tasks of NATO forces and Russia's fully
coincide. Brussels and Moscow are working together in this area and can
expand their co-operation. In particular, the green light has been given to
the transit of German military cargoes and troops via Russia to
Afghanistan. The Kremlin may sign similar agreements with other bloc members.

Ambassador Altenburg also said that the NATO and EU leadership had
repeatedly reminded the leaders of Baltic countries of the need to respect
the legitimate rights of the Russian-speaking minority. Their efforts have
not always been successful but the solution of such problems takes time.

Alexander Konovalov, president of the Strategic Assessments Institute,
compared the bloc to "an asylum for hysterical Baltic politicians." He
agrees that some time will pass before they get rid of the persistent fear
of "Russian occupation." At the same time, the leadership of the Russian
Defence Ministry should be warned against making such complaints to the
bloc as can be found in the report of Sergei Ivanov and the ministry's
booklet, Priority Tasks of the Development of the Armed Forces of Russia.
They describe in detail the forms and methods of aerospace, ground and
naval operations in the Western Strategic Direction, which cannot be
interpreted other than as a direct threat to Europe.

Most speakers agree that Moscow should accept NATO as an objective reality.
But Moscow will be satisfied only with a competent bloc that relies more on
corporate partnership (including with Russia) and preclude political and
military intrigues in the most delicate area of the Kremlin's vital
interests, meaning co-operation with CIS countries and their individual
leaders.

At the same time, conference participants noted that Brussels would accept
only a democratic Russia free of authoritarianism in domestic and foreign
policy, a Russia that has resolved the Chechen problem and has a small but
well-armed and controlled and sufficiently professional army.