 16:36
2003-01-08
What's Actual Difficulty with NATO
Stand?
Recently PRAVDA.Ru got an
e-mail from a reader who wanted to know the attitude of Russia to
the position of NATO. It seems that we must publish our response to
the reader on the front page of the site so that people could
clearly see why Russia dislikes or seldom likes the position of
NATO.
The reader asked: “Your article left the reader
wondering what was the actual difficulty with the stand of NATO?”
This is our response to the question.
Hello Mr.
Engelhart,
Thank you for the interest to our source. We’ll
try to give an answer to your question concerning the position of
NATO, the Prague Summit and subsequent problems of Russia.
Just imagine yourself sitting at your farm; meanwhile, your
neighbor, with whom you are on rather good terms, got completely
crazy about the idea that you are planning to encroach upon his
farm. You are trying to persuade him that nothing of this kind is on
your mind, but all is in vain (the neighbor is as stubborn as an
ass). And even more: the neighbor calls a group of warriors from a
nearby fort, the latter come and set up a camp on the territory of
the neighboring farm. The neighbor has gone mad because of this
happiness, but the man slightly realizes how much his crazy shady
enterprise may cost (maintenance of a group of warriors costs a
lot). Let’s proceed. You get very unhappy because of such
neighborhood (you cannot sleep because of screams of drunk and
raging soldiers, which certainly make you reluctant to make it up
with the neighbor at all). You become suspicious and aggressive and
consider everyone to be your enemy. Following the example of the
neighbor, you are getting armed. No, there will be no war; but it is
going to be such a violent struggle for peace that it won’t leave a
stone standing.
It is certainly a joke, but many a true word
is spoken in jest.
To tell earnestly, NATO is the result of
the cold war. Its main objective is to fight against the USSR. There
is no Soviet Union any more, however, the product of the war hasn’t
gone together with the USSR, on the contrary it is even expanding.
This fact is confirmed by the Prague summit, where nine more members
were admitted into the alliance, including the three Baltic
republics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia).
A reasonable
question arises: why do these states (and other countries striving
to become NATO members) want to become affiliated into the alliance
so strongly? The answer is simple: they want to guarantee their own
security. But what are the enemies to defend themselves from? Is
there anyone in Europe who threatens the territorial integrity or
independence of these states? There is no threat of this kind and it
is unlikely to arise.
The NATO leadership emphasized several
times that expansion of the alliance posed no danger to Russia. Why
do NATO experts so actively inspect the military bases created on
the territory of the Baltic states in the Soviet era? Why, if NATO
expansion doesn’t threaten Russia?
We are often said that
NATO expansion will create more effective structures for struggle
with the international terrorism, which is said to be the
top-priority objective for the time being. The problem is very
important indeed. But NATO is a military alliance; meanwhile,
special services, not the army must fight with terrorism. When army
is involved in fighting with terrorism, it is like bringing an
elephant in a china shop. Certainly, Israel, Chechnya and
Afghanistan are exceptions from the rule. In these regions,
terrorists have created real armies, with which special units cannot
cope. They won’t be able to cope with them until the basic forces of
the terrorists are liquidated.
One more detail. Who in NATO
and how is supposed to take a decision concerning use of military
force? What will be the criteria for making such decisions? Who may
guarantee that states outside the alliance will be insured against
mistakes made by the NATO leadership? The events in Yugoslavia in
1999 may serve a vivid example to this. We won’t mention whether the
bombing was rightful, as Russia’s position concerning the problem is
well known. We would like to mention the thing
that provoked the attacks: it was alleged that the government of
Slobodan Milosevic started repressions against Albanians in Kosovo.
What was the result of it? The ethnic cleansing continued, but this
time Serbs and Albanians have exchanged the roles. Is it more
fair?
In conclusion we would like to get back to the
history. Do you remember the Caribbean crisis when the Soviet Union
stationed missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba? The US’s reaction
to this fact is also known perfectly well: the world was on the
brink of war. However, the USSR just wanted to guarantee its
security. If Americans stationed their missiles in Turkey, close to
the USSR borders, why couldn’t the Soviet Union do the same in Cuba?
Now the history may repeat once again.
The NATO leadership
provided no guarantees that no weapons of mass destruction would be
stationed near the Russian borders. Certainly, the problem can be
currently discussed just theoretically. But the reality of the
politics is such that even extremely fantastic theories may come
true.
Oleg Artyukov
Dmitry Litvinovich
PRAVDA.Ru
| |
