Tweet
Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
July 14, 2005, Thursday
LOOKING FOR THE ENEMY
SOURCE: Vremya Novostei, July 14, 2005, p. 4
by Nikolai Poroskov
The political demarche of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has
forced NATO to change tactics. Earlier this month, Shanghai
Cooperation Organization members and observers expressed support for
Uzbekistan in its demand for NATO to withdraw its bases from Central
Asia. Moreover, they also asked the Alliance to set a timeframe for
the withdrawal. Implementation of decisions made at the NATO summit
in Istanbul last year, when a sizeable part of Central Asia and the
Caucasus were branded as a NATO strategic interests zone, was
therefore jeopardized.
It stands to reason to expect NATO to concentrate on the Caucasus
now. Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, Vice President of the
Geopolitical Academy, maintains that as soon as the Russian military
bases are expelled from Georgia and then Armenia, NATO will
immediately move in with its tactical bases with the necessary
infrastructure and personnel ready to receive major forces airlifted
there in the matter of hours. Efforts are undertaken to have a new
alliance (Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan) formed. As far as Ivashov is
concerned, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan is being put under
pressure to make three airfields available to the Americans.
What really counts, however, is that NATO is bound to concentrate on
Ukraine whose political establishment longs for integration into
Europe. Back in 2002, the Rada passed a resolution (which amounts to
a law) making all of the territory of Ukraine available for
deployment of NATO troops with heavy military hardware. The Greater
Black Sea Zone NATO Program is quite explicit on how naval bases,
coast infrastructure, etc. should be acquainted and familiarized
with. All this worries patriotic Russian politicians and political
scientists. They believe that the new course of the Ukrainian
authorities may eventually split the country into three parts whose
borders will be defined by the West-East confrontation and
instability of the Crimea. "Even if Ukraine is ever admitted into
Europe, it will only be part by part," Ivashov claims. In any case,
the situation in Ukraine may make presence of the Russian Black Sea
Fleet there impossible. Even though it is supposed to remain there
until 2017. Still, NATO doors will be closed for Ukraine while it has
the Russian fleet on its territory.
Now that the West is blamed for orchestration of color revolutions
and that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization pulled off the latest
demarche, Russian politicians regularly recall the episodes when the
Alliance proved itself an unreliable partner or did not keep its
promise. Russia insisted on amendment of the Russia-NATO Pact so that
it would include the provision that nuclear weapons would never be
deployed on the territories of new NATO countries. The Alliance,
however, only gave the consent to a vague provision mentioning "the
lack of intentions" and would not become more specific. It is clear
now that not even interaction with the Alliance in the war on
terrorism is effective. "Show at least one arrested criminal, why
don't you?" Ivashov says. "There is no one to show. How can it be
anything else when 85% of interaction with the Alliance boils down to
combat readiness drills..." That is what makes interaction with NATO
a waste of time and effort that doesn't augment anyone's security.
The Alliance is accused of "conceptual aggressiveness." This
assumption is reiterated by the words of NATO Secretary General Jaap
de Hoop Scheffer at the meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe on the eve of his visit to Moscow. NATO exists to
protect and advance democracy, even by military means if need be, he
said. Even the necessity of joint military exercises is questioned.
Once again, history is referred to. Back in 1998 and 1999, NATO
leaders spared neither time nor effort to persuade the Kremlin that
military exercises around the former Yugoslavia would not escalate
into hostilities. Besides, NATO forces involved in Exercise Baltops
were supposed to detect and destroy a terrorist submarine. Whose
submarines but Russia's can ever be in the Baltic Sea?
By the way, Russia doesn't participate in Exercise Peace Shield 2005
that began yesterday. About 750 servicemen from 22 countries are
involved. The legend of the first phase of the exercise is based on
the actual military-political situation in Iraq. On July 25, the
exercise will shift to the Crimea.
Sure, every military exercise emulates a situation that might take
shape in real life. Peace Shield exercises of the past were clearly
anti-Russian. Here is an example of the scenarios: widespread riots
begin in the Crimea, and a foreign power gives aid to the
Russian-speaking population. It isn't hard to guess that the foreign
power could only be Russia... This time, the objectives of an
"international peacekeeping operation" will be drilled in the naval
part of the exercise. That is probably why Russia has opted not to
participate. Or perhaps the situation in the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization became the guiding motive.
There are, however, people in Russia who view the "alliance with the
Alliance" from a different angle. Alexander Konovalov, head of the
Strategic Evaluations Institute, believes that the worst possible
thing happened to NATO: NATO has found itself without a mission and
without an adversary. NATO is frantically seeking some other form of
self-definition. Unfortunately, it hasn't been effective so far in
the war on WMD proliferation, terrorism, drug trafficking, or illegal
immigration. Even the Americans admit that NATO is really a burden,
with little to show for the trouble. Article 5 of the Washington
Accord (aggression against one NATO country means aggression against
all) doesn't work. Konovalov maintains that NATO countries are not
prepared for joint defense of the Baltic states. Flights of patrol
aircraft above the Baltic states are but a PR move, a purely
political gesture. Whatever the aircraft observe can as easily be
observed on flights from Norwegian airfields.
The eastward movement of NATO bases is attributed to purely financial
considerations. Maintaining them in Poland or Bulgaria is much
cheaper than maintaining them in Germany. Konovalov's conclusions:
NATO doesn't pose any threats to Russia; and we could lose our
country without any external aggression, simply by failing to improve
the nation's health and the quality of its human resources.
Translated by A. Ignatkin
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
July 14, 2005, Thursday
LOOKING FOR THE ENEMY
SOURCE: Vremya Novostei, July 14, 2005, p. 4
by Nikolai Poroskov
The political demarche of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has
forced NATO to change tactics. Earlier this month, Shanghai
Cooperation Organization members and observers expressed support for
Uzbekistan in its demand for NATO to withdraw its bases from Central
Asia. Moreover, they also asked the Alliance to set a timeframe for
the withdrawal. Implementation of decisions made at the NATO summit
in Istanbul last year, when a sizeable part of Central Asia and the
Caucasus were branded as a NATO strategic interests zone, was
therefore jeopardized.
It stands to reason to expect NATO to concentrate on the Caucasus
now. Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, Vice President of the
Geopolitical Academy, maintains that as soon as the Russian military
bases are expelled from Georgia and then Armenia, NATO will
immediately move in with its tactical bases with the necessary
infrastructure and personnel ready to receive major forces airlifted
there in the matter of hours. Efforts are undertaken to have a new
alliance (Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan) formed. As far as Ivashov is
concerned, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan is being put under
pressure to make three airfields available to the Americans.
What really counts, however, is that NATO is bound to concentrate on
Ukraine whose political establishment longs for integration into
Europe. Back in 2002, the Rada passed a resolution (which amounts to
a law) making all of the territory of Ukraine available for
deployment of NATO troops with heavy military hardware. The Greater
Black Sea Zone NATO Program is quite explicit on how naval bases,
coast infrastructure, etc. should be acquainted and familiarized
with. All this worries patriotic Russian politicians and political
scientists. They believe that the new course of the Ukrainian
authorities may eventually split the country into three parts whose
borders will be defined by the West-East confrontation and
instability of the Crimea. "Even if Ukraine is ever admitted into
Europe, it will only be part by part," Ivashov claims. In any case,
the situation in Ukraine may make presence of the Russian Black Sea
Fleet there impossible. Even though it is supposed to remain there
until 2017. Still, NATO doors will be closed for Ukraine while it has
the Russian fleet on its territory.
Now that the West is blamed for orchestration of color revolutions
and that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization pulled off the latest
demarche, Russian politicians regularly recall the episodes when the
Alliance proved itself an unreliable partner or did not keep its
promise. Russia insisted on amendment of the Russia-NATO Pact so that
it would include the provision that nuclear weapons would never be
deployed on the territories of new NATO countries. The Alliance,
however, only gave the consent to a vague provision mentioning "the
lack of intentions" and would not become more specific. It is clear
now that not even interaction with the Alliance in the war on
terrorism is effective. "Show at least one arrested criminal, why
don't you?" Ivashov says. "There is no one to show. How can it be
anything else when 85% of interaction with the Alliance boils down to
combat readiness drills..." That is what makes interaction with NATO
a waste of time and effort that doesn't augment anyone's security.
The Alliance is accused of "conceptual aggressiveness." This
assumption is reiterated by the words of NATO Secretary General Jaap
de Hoop Scheffer at the meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe on the eve of his visit to Moscow. NATO exists to
protect and advance democracy, even by military means if need be, he
said. Even the necessity of joint military exercises is questioned.
Once again, history is referred to. Back in 1998 and 1999, NATO
leaders spared neither time nor effort to persuade the Kremlin that
military exercises around the former Yugoslavia would not escalate
into hostilities. Besides, NATO forces involved in Exercise Baltops
were supposed to detect and destroy a terrorist submarine. Whose
submarines but Russia's can ever be in the Baltic Sea?
By the way, Russia doesn't participate in Exercise Peace Shield 2005
that began yesterday. About 750 servicemen from 22 countries are
involved. The legend of the first phase of the exercise is based on
the actual military-political situation in Iraq. On July 25, the
exercise will shift to the Crimea.
Sure, every military exercise emulates a situation that might take
shape in real life. Peace Shield exercises of the past were clearly
anti-Russian. Here is an example of the scenarios: widespread riots
begin in the Crimea, and a foreign power gives aid to the
Russian-speaking population. It isn't hard to guess that the foreign
power could only be Russia... This time, the objectives of an
"international peacekeeping operation" will be drilled in the naval
part of the exercise. That is probably why Russia has opted not to
participate. Or perhaps the situation in the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization became the guiding motive.
There are, however, people in Russia who view the "alliance with the
Alliance" from a different angle. Alexander Konovalov, head of the
Strategic Evaluations Institute, believes that the worst possible
thing happened to NATO: NATO has found itself without a mission and
without an adversary. NATO is frantically seeking some other form of
self-definition. Unfortunately, it hasn't been effective so far in
the war on WMD proliferation, terrorism, drug trafficking, or illegal
immigration. Even the Americans admit that NATO is really a burden,
with little to show for the trouble. Article 5 of the Washington
Accord (aggression against one NATO country means aggression against
all) doesn't work. Konovalov maintains that NATO countries are not
prepared for joint defense of the Baltic states. Flights of patrol
aircraft above the Baltic states are but a PR move, a purely
political gesture. Whatever the aircraft observe can as easily be
observed on flights from Norwegian airfields.
The eastward movement of NATO bases is attributed to purely financial
considerations. Maintaining them in Poland or Bulgaria is much
cheaper than maintaining them in Germany. Konovalov's conclusions:
NATO doesn't pose any threats to Russia; and we could lose our
country without any external aggression, simply by failing to improve
the nation's health and the quality of its human resources.
Translated by A. Ignatkin