#6129
[Second Issue of the Day]
#1
Izvestia
March 12, 2002
AMERICA HAS 2,000 TARGETS IN RUSSIA
Provided the level of relations remains unchanged, it will have only 1,000 a
decade from now
Author: Yevgeny Bai
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]
AN INTERVIEW WITH BRUCE BLAIR, DIRECTOR OF THE
DEFENSE INFORMATION CENTER (WASHINGTON, DC).
[DJ: Center for Defense Information/ bblair@cdi.org]
The United States is in for a lengthy war against terrorism, and it may find it rather uneasy to get Russia onboard any further as an ally
Negotiations between the Russian and American military represented by Sergei Ivanov and Donald Rumsfeld have begun in Washington. Along with that the United States is building its future policy in other vital directions - Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf. Here is an interview with Bruce Blair, Director of the Defense Information Center in Washington, on the complexity and interconnection of all these tasks.
Question: What is your opinion on the report published by the Pentagon in the American media in which Russia is on the list of seven states against which America might use nuclear weapons, i.e. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Libya. That's a nice company for the country already called a strategic ally in the United States.
Bruce Blair: The United States sees the difference between and has a different approach with regard to each of these states.
As for Russia, the situation is wholly different here. With rapprochement between our states deepening, the United States drastically reduces the number of targets on the Russian territory. It has 2,000 targets in Russia today, and the number will be reduced to a thousand within a decade. If I may say so, Russia has been moved to a lower category but in general this is a positive evaluation of the level of the potential threat its poses. I know at the same time that both states go on drafting scenarios of a full-fledged nuclear war even though this is absolutely impossible today. This is a legacy of the past enmity, which takes time to overcome.
Question: The words about strategic partnership between America and Russia we've been hearing in the wake of September 11, are they empty words or do they really mean something?
Bruce Blair: I'm very confident that Russia's assistance to the United States in Afghanistan was invaluable. The matter concerns intelligence data and information on methods of warfare on targets not indicated on American tactical maps. As I see it, our countries are on the level that may be termed as a moral alliance. When one of the state faces an external threat, the other comes to its aid. This is the first time in history that we have this sort of mutual understanding. Perhaps, the war on international terrorism will allow America and Russia to spread this cooperation into other spheres as well.
We have much more room for manoeuvre in the area of offensive nuclear arms reduction than in matters concerning strategic defense missiles. Bush cherishes an ambitious anti-ballistic missile defense program, and I do not think the Russians will be permitted to have a say on its parameters.
Question: Do you think the United States made a compromise by agreeing to sign with Russia a treaty on strategic offensive arms reduction?
Bruce Blair: As I see it, Putin made an even more serious compromise by agreeing to the future of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty. But certain softening of the American position is also a fact that cannot be ignored. I ascribe it to efforts of US State Secretary Colin Powell. He is convinced that it will benefit the United States to sign with Russia an accord on inspection and monitoring of the process of warhead dismantling. The same goes for the Russian-NATO relations by the way. Powell wants a Russia that will be playing an active part in the NATO 20.
Question: But Powell is working against a sturdy Pentagon lobby. Who is his major opponent? Rumsfeld himself or his assistant Paul Wolfovitz?
Bruce Blair: I'm not at liberty to give you an inside view. It is clear, however, that Wolfovitz is a worse hawk. He is not alone, you know. There are other hard-liners. In the National Security Council this is Robert Joseph. In the US Department of State there is John Bolton, who is the nucleus of all conservative forces therein. He is Powell's assistant on arms control.
Question: But the proposed action against Saddam Hussein may create an even larger gap in the relations between our countries.
Bruce Blair: The US Administration has a certain room for manoeuvring. If the American military and secret services provide proof that the military action in Iraq is needed to destroy the country's weapons of mass destruction, if an action like that fits the UN general strategy (it demands restoration of the mission of international observers in this country, you know), then operation against the Iraqi regime will probably be supported by America's allies and by Russia itself. In the long run, nobody wants Saddam. If, however, the international community sees the action only as an attempt to topple a dictator hated by the United States, then America will find it difficult to justify its actions.
A few words about Afghanistan. America cannot pull out while Al Qaeda is still alive and resisting. As for the statement that "everything is just beginning" there, I think that the Pentagon strategists mean that the United States is in for a difficult and lengthy war aimed to root out terrorist organizations existing in 60 states of the world. The American troops may sustain even heavier losses now that a more dangerous phase of the operation is underway.
(Translated by A. Ignatkin)
Back to the Top Next Article
- Back to the Top -