Viktor Sokolov
Interview with the Vice President of "Reform"
Foundation, Andranik Migranyan
Q: Vladimir Putin has just
suggested that either NATO dissolves itself or accepts Russia in its ranks as an
equitable partner. What is this - another invitation for a discussion? Or
perhaps, the time has come for the Alliance to either open its door for Russia
or cease its existence?
A: First of all, NATO cannot open its door for
Russia, and neither can it dissolve itself.
Putin's suggestion
is, of course, a belated but the same continuation of the line that was more or
less pertinent back in the 1991-1992s.
The idea that it was necessary to
dissolve NATO and set up a universal structure of security for the world and
Europe first surfaced after the Warsaw Treaty Organization dissolved itself.
After that, it was considered pointless to retain NATO since the mutual
threat had disappeared, and there was no military bloc confronting
NATO.
However, the West decided to do it in its own way. They decided to
turn NATO into a universal structure of security, without the participation of
Russia.
Moscow's attempts, through Partnership for Peace or the Founding
Act of Russia-NATO, to become a serious factor of international security
actually resulted in nothing.
This can be seen from the Alliance's
unilateral decision to bomb Yugoslavia. This can be seen from the repeated
bombings of Iraq by British and American aircraft. It can be seen in a lot of
other events.
That is why Putin's words are seen as a revival of
those positions that Russia at one time upheld, but the West ignored them. And
Moscow seemed to have become accustomed to this.
Q: Why does such a
revival come precisely at this time?
A: I think that this is connected
with the upcoming next stage of expanding NATO eastward, with the inclusion of
the Baltic states.
The Russian side, in the person of Putin, is
coming out with a forestalling, radical statement on this account.
Putin is not asking why the Alliance needs Eastern Europe? Why it
needs the Baltic states? He puts the question more radically: "Why, in general,
do we need NATO?"
And he replies to this question himself: if NATO is a
universal structure for European security, then it must function together with
Russia's participation.
In the political aspect, I don't think that much
will come out of this. But from the point of view of propaganda, this may have
definite significance during discussions at the G8 summit in Genoa, as well as
in all other discussions where the question of NATO's enlargement comes
up.
Q: Perhaps the Russia-NATO Permanent Council will work more
energetically?
A: I've already said that this council is not very
effective. We had two lines in respect to NATO. The first - to cooperate, to
become closer to each other and to try to influence NATO.
The second was
to distance ourselves from NATO and to find other possibilities for opposing
NATO's expansion.
The first line led to nothing.
The recent
accords with China and Putin's tough statement yesterday concerning NATO
seem to indicate that Russia is departing from its previous line of nodding
"yes" and following in the wake of Western policy.
© National Information Service Strana.Ru, 2000. RF Press Ministry Registration Certificate: El.#77-4102 of September 7, 2000.
Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to http://www.strana.ru/.
