Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CIS defence system disintegrating, CIS "slowly dying",says Russian p

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CIS defence system disintegrating, CIS "slowly dying",says Russian p

    CIS defence system disintegrating, CIS "slowly dying", says Russian paper

    Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow
    14 Feb 05

    The collective defence system of the Commonwealth of Independent States
    has begun to rapidly disintegrate, according to a Moscow daily. The
    Commonwealth, as a transitional entity between USSR republics and
    post-Soviet sovereign countries, is slowly dying, it said, and
    collective military relations are no exception. The countries form
    their military relations not in accordance with the model established
    in the 1990s, but in accordance with their national interests, the
    paper said. The following is text of report by Vladimir Mukhin:
    "Farewell To Arms! Collective Arms.... Russia's CIS partners are
    rapidly dismantling the common defence space" published by Russian
    newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta on 14 February:

    The CIS collective defence system has begun to rapidly
    disintegrate. The first evidence of this is the imminent
    abolition of the CIS Staff for Coordinating Military Cooperation
    [ShKVS]. Nezavisimaya Gazeta has learned from informed sources at the
    Russian Defence Ministry that after long and intensive consultations
    Moscow finally accepted Astana's proposal to abolish this supranational
    body. The structure, which has tried throughout post-Soviet history
    to do at least something to regulate military relations between the
    CIS state, is breathing its last.

    That this decision may be made at the CIS summit to be held in Kazan
    in August 2005 was confirmed for Nezavisimaya Gazeta by Col-Gen Leonid
    Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues, who
    was behind the creation of the ShKVS and for a long time headed the
    CIS Council of Defence Ministers secretariat and the Russian Defence
    Ministry main international military cooperation directorate. The
    general himself sees this step as "extremely erroneous and damaging;
    one that significantly weakens Russia's positions in the post-Soviet
    space". As you know, Russia has hitherto opposed the abolition of the
    ShKVS and even at last November's Council of Ministers it initiated
    support for the body on the part of other CIS republic - first and
    foremost, the Central Asian republics and Armenia. Now we have a
    U-turn, as they say. Why?

    The answer to this question is provided to some extent by the
    heads of various CIS structures and post-Soviet republics' military
    ministers. "No single Eurasian security space currently exists," CIS
    General Secretary Nikolay Bordyuzha believes. "It remains fragmentary
    and diffuse and to some extent internally contradictory, since some
    of its elements not only fail to harmonize, but compete with one
    another." In order to avoid this, in his opinion, "it is necessary
    to delimit spheres of influence in matters of safeguarding collective
    security between existing integration structures in the region - CIS,
    the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Eurasian Economic Community,
    the Collective Security Treaty Organization [CSTO] and others". That
    is, Bordyuzha diplomatically avoids mentioning the abolition of
    military structures within the CIS (ShKVS and Council of Defence
    Ministers), but clearly singles out his own structure, the Collective
    Security Treaty Organization, which could be the "engine-room for
    integration processes in the CIS space". Kazakh Defence Minister
    Mukhtar Altynbayev is even more emphatic. Like President Nursultan
    Nazarbayev, he believes that "instead of an ineffective ShKVS and
    ineffective Council of Defence Ministers a CIS states' Security
    Council should be set up, operating within the framework of the
    CIS". This idea has already been partially supported by Belarusian
    Defence Minister Leanid Maltsaw: His proposal is to disband the ShKVS,
    but keep the Council of Defence Ministers secretariat.

    But only six of the 12 post-Soviet countries (we can rule the Baltic
    countries out right away) are members of the CSTO. They, let us say,
    will be "engine-rooms of integration", but what are the others to
    do? The CIS Security Council, if set up, cannot be an "engine-room"
    either, since there are still no integration processes in the
    post-Soviet space.

    It has to be said that the Commonwealth, as a transitional entity
    between USSR republics and post-Soviet sovereign countries, is
    slowly dying. And collective military relations are no exception. The
    countries form their military relations not in accordance with the
    model established in the nineties, but in accordance with their
    national interests. And this is evidently an objective process. That
    the CSTO military staff is more effective than the ShKVS is an
    illusion. For instance, within the CSTO there is already a nucleus of
    countries united by their own coalition forces in Central Asia. There
    is a single grouping of Russian and Belarusian forces in the western
    CIS and Russian and Armenian forces in the south. All these groupings
    have their own command and control staffs and only at a pinch could
    they be united under the CSTO flag. At the same time, the recent
    10th anniversary of the formation of the CIS combined air defence
    system showed that many post-Soviet countries have common interests
    in defending their air borders. Of course, the CSTO states are
    the backbone of the countries. But there is rivalry and there are
    problems even among them. For instance, Kyrgyzstan, a CSTO member,
    is clearly lagging behind integration processes within the framework
    of the formation of the combined air defence system. Its air defence
    chief, Col Vladimir Valyayev, was not even at the celebratory session
    of the combined air defence system countries' coordinating commission,
    which discussed plans for 2005. But Ukraine and Uzbekistan, which, as
    you know, are not CSTO members, have shown an interest in these events.

    Kazakhstan is active, as ever, having proposed CIS air defence forces
    exercises not only at the Russian firing range, as has happened in
    the past, but at its sole Sary-Shagan military firing range. Ukraine
    has already taken the bait by severing the contracts with Moscow for
    firing exercises in Ashuluk (Astrakhan Region) and is now preparing
    an intergovernmental agreement on firing exercises at the Kazakhstani
    range. So we find military-technical competition between CSTO allies
    - Astana and Moscow. And Astana is clearly winning in this case,
    since its firing range is both considerably bigger and obviously
    more attractive financially. But this demonstrates once again the
    fact that military relations are being built not in accordance with
    the CSTO and ShKVS organizations' models, but in accordance with the
    interests of the CIS states' military structures.

    Moscow traditionally provides military equipment and services for
    CIS combined air defence system states at their own domestic prices,
    largely taking it upon itself to provide the military infrastructure
    (airfields, test sites, headquarters), train personnel, and so
    on. All it gets in return is unhealthy competition between military
    firing ranges, "semihostile" blocs (remember GUUAM [Georgia, Ukraine,
    Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Moldova]), and purchase of armaments and
    military hardware from and training of CIS armed forces' officers in
    NATO countries (as Ukraine will now be doing and Georgia is already
    doing).

    "Collective staffs and collective defence bodies have run their course
    in their present form also because Russia has not finally decided on
    it own principles, and its own ideology in mutual relations with the
    CIS countries," Academician Vladimir Popov of the Academy of Military
    Sciences believes.

    According to the analyst, the ShKVS has run its course. It had already
    been halved in 2004 and the 55 officers that remain are not calling
    the shots - they are clearly ineffective. But this does not mean
    that the staff should be destroyed. Its staffers might well take
    up theoretical work, developing blueprints, identifying threats,
    and planning joint measures in Moscow's interests. Indeed it was the
    ShKVS that devised documents defining the content of such concepts
    as CIS collective defence and security.

    Moreover, the ShKVS is in Moscow. The Russian capital provides a
    base for work and tackles the everyday problems of offices from CIS
    countries. And it pays extra for communication, for lighting, and so
    on. And he who pays the piper should call the tune.
Working...
X