Дата публикации: 14 мая 2014
Автор: Aleksei Vasilyev, political scientist, Russia →
Публикатор: Александр Павлович Шиманский
Рубрика: МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ ПРАВО →
Источник: (c) http://portalus.ru →
Номер публикации: №1400069594 / Жалобы? Ошибка? Выделите проблемный текст и нажмите CTRL+ENTER!
Aleksei Vasilyev, political scientist, Russia, (c)
NATO headquarters originated the propaganda cliche that expansion of the Alliance would allegedly contribute to reinforcing security of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Generally speaking, rephrased is quite old and, in our nuclear age, quite controversial idea of Friedrich Logau on the so-called armed world.
At the same time, NATO is represented as the most ?perfect? military-political organisation in the history of mankind. Further growth of this largest and most powerful military machine of all times is interpreted in the spirit of the theory of moral virtue. For example, V. Havel, President of the Czech Republic, has recently asserted that NATO is designated for preserving such values as human rights, democracy, free elections and market economy. V. Havel noted that the North Atlantic alliance should safeguard not only sovereignty of peoples or geopolitical interests, but also a definite type of culture and civilisation. According to the formula of the Czech President, NATO is an Alliance of solidarity of people committed to common values.1
According to the rightful definition by V. Mironov, Director of the Institute for Politics, alongside with NATO expansion and due to the defence treaty with Japan, the West is simply grabbing Russia with ?geostrategic claws?.2
After the disintegration of the USSR nuclear weapons inherited by Russia were reduced by one third and conventional weapons-by 37%. The amount of funding for the needs of the Russian army is 24 times less than that of the NATO countries. Since 1991 the Russian forces have been withdrawn from 19 countries. At the same time, with the accession of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to NATO, targets located before the Volga river and farther east would be within the range of military aviation of the bloc.
Neither V. Havel, nor other disciples of NATO enlargement reveal in what way the Alliance will play its ?noble? role. They are likely to conceal the actual goals of preserving and enhancing the North Atlantic Alliance. However, the facts prove that NATO remains a military bloc with invariable nuclear and military strategy aimed at safeguarding the interests of its members only. The statement that NATO expansion is ?safe? for Russia and other countries of the CIS is totally unsubstantiated. Claims by NATO representatives on the lack of intentions to move nuclear weapons eastwards are quite doubtful. Intentions in politics is a variable. Historical examples of the use of East Europeans as cannon fodder by Western allies make it possible to assume that deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of new NATO members is quite possible.
Military threat to Russia and other CIS countries in the mid- and long-term perspective will be largely connected with the corollary of the development of ?smart? weapons. The NATO?s leading countries put stake on the breakthrough in this area to get armaments with combat characteristics comparable with nuclear weapons in terms of combat effect.
Rationale for NATO Enlargement
The United States and its main West European allies practically do not conceal that they are conducting purposeful work to provide for their long-term military-political supremacy in the world. Thus, after the disintegration of the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty, practical actions of the Western powers are taken in the spirit of the words by one of F. Schiller?s characters: The law is on the winner?s side, and law for us is only limits of our power.3 What will be in the beginning of the new century, if already now NATO quite impudently resorts to threats against nations and peoples that do not share common values underpinning the Alliance!?
Now, according to the authoritative Polish journal Dzis, the new ?Big Brother? of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic is pursuing a goal of controlling and managing the situation in these countries.4
Behind the NATO enlargement is Washington?s urge to upgrade one of the U.S. mechanisms providing for global supremacy. Z. Brzezinski used to emphasise that American-Soviet dispute was not merely a conflict between de-mocratic and totalitarian regimes, but also the clash of the two great imperial systems.5 According to his assessment, for the first time in history their rivalry was of global character. This rivalry was further aggravated by the high level of armaments and the development of the mass media. To achieve victory in this historic conflict, the U.S. had to paralyse the Soviet policy and to exploit, to its advantage, the weak points of the USSR.
Despite the fact that Z. Brzezinski left the White House long ago, his considerations and recommendations are still worthy of attention. Widely known are his authority and close ties with those people who hold important positions within the U.S. government and in some other countries. In his book The Great Chessboard Z. Brzezinski, using terminology of ancient empires, points out ?three great missions of the imperial geostrategy? of Washington: to prevent an agreement between the vassals and preserve their dependence on common security; to keep inferiors obedient and provide for their protection; to thwart any alliance of the barbarians.6 ?Barbarians? are supposed to be those capable of advancing ?anti-hegemonic? intentions. Apparently, Russia would be the first to qualify.
Z. Brzezinski openly stated a ?bitter fact? that Western Europe and, increasingly, Central Europe remained, to a large extent, an American protectorate; incidentally, allied states remind one of ancient vassals and inferiors.
This helps answer the question: why Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic will not initially join the European Union, something that seemingly better meets the interests of raising the well-being of citizens of these countries, and of reinforcing the unity of Europe. The U.S.?s domination in NATO and Western financial institutions makes it possible for Americans-like in the late 1940s-to dictate conditions. For example, at the talks in London and Paris in 1948, U.S. Secretary of State G. Marshall tied the allocation of the U.S. economic assistance to actual efforts by the British and French to the establishment of the military bloc of the West. In recent years, similar method has been used in regard to East Europeans.
Z. Brzezinski suggested a ?careful-realistic schedule? of the expansion of Europe and expansion of the Trans-Atlantic security system:
?by 1999, the first three candidate countries of Central Europe will join NATO, whilst their accession to the EU will apparently take place no sooner than in 2002-03;
?concurrently, the EU will launch accession talks with the Baltic states; similarly, NATO will come out with the question of these countries? membership, as well as that of Romania, so as to complete this process by 2005;
?accession of the Baltic states to NATO will, most likely, make Sweden and Finland consider the question of NATO membership;
?approximately between 2005 and 2010 Ukraine should be ready for serious talks with both the EU and NATO.
Apparently, this schedule has much in common with what have been said by politicians from the countries involved in this process.
About NATO Morals
Former U.S. Secretary of State G. Baker once urged Soviet leaders: ?Let the Baltic peoples go! As a matter of fact, you will be better off having three small Finlands nearby.?7 At present, Americans openly land their combat aircraft at former Soviet Air Force bases in the Baltic states and conduct joint military manoeuvres in the region.
The thesis of the NATO advocates that the eastward expansion of the Alliance means the expansion of security in Europe is immoral, at least because, according to the American press, it is the biggest U.S. military corporations that use their enormous financial resources to push through the idea of NATO expansion. In 1996, having started the practical realisation of this idea, the U.S. spent 32% of all military expenditures in the world, compared to 27% spent in 1985, the year of the Cold War era.8 The current defence expenditures of NATO countries are not merely excessive. We are talking-and this is admitted by Western experts too-not only about the absence of threat from Russia. The NATO strategy has become a roadblock on the way of resolution of common problems of the civilisation.
Also immoral is the fact that U.S. Deputy Secretary of State S. Talbott suggested that the citizens of Russia, in response to the emergence of the NATO forces at doorsteps of their country, should simply ?overcome the longstanding stereotypes of the Cold War era?. S. Talbott alleges that Russians themselves are essentially facing the problem of elimination of suspicions over the actual goals of the U.S. and NATO. 9 Washington, obviously, sticks to the hypocritical approach towards Russia.
In 1999, the countries, in which approximately one million Soviet soldiers perished for the liberation from Hitler?s troops, will officially join the military bloc of the West. Henceforth Russia, Belarus and Ukraine will become not just geographic names for the military in Budapest, Warsaw and Prague. It is quite possible that some of them will, against their will, take part in the preparation of military actions against governments and peoples, which do not share NATO?s common values. Involuntarily, this reminds one of mid-1941 when the governments of East European countries, with the exception of Poland, joined Hitler?s aggression against the USSR. Staying behind the back of a strong ?master?, each of them hoped to benefit from the Hitler?s expansion eastwards.
Of course, this historical parallel is, to a degree, very controversial. However, the price paid by Russia for the attempts by representatives of the ?civilised? Europe to impose its values and influence on the east was too high to react indifferently to a dramatic increase of NATO?s real military potential near its borders, even if this is backed, in the words of the leaders of the Alliance, by the most noble intentions.
What to Do
The conclusion by a number of Russian political scientists that the main danger is local and border conflicts, is absolutely incorrect. The NATO enlargement can quickly turn from the military threat to a direct menace. The concepts of NATO members and practical steps aimed at enhancing their military power prove that the U.S. and its allies are not interested in letting Russia and other countries of the CIS restore their political influence in the world. Accordingly, to help keep crises at a critical level and preserve disintegration tendencies in these nations seems to be a reasonable policy under such context.
For Russia, under the conditions of unfavourable geostrategic and economic situation, an imperative is the provision of the potential for deterrence of any aggressor. An all-Russian referendum on setting a mandatory level of funding for strengthening defence seems quite reasonable. Additionally, what is needed and feasible is an optimisation of the system of international treaties and arrangements of Russia to avoid irrational expenditures on reduction of the available armaments.
1. V. Havel, NATO Is Solidarity, Rzeczpospolita, April 1998.
2. V. Mironov, Chto Sulit Rossii Globalnyi Rasklad Sil v XXI Veke, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 15 April 1997.
3. F. Schiller, Razboiniki. Kovarstvo i Liybov. Piesy, Minsk, 1978, p. 12.
4. New Big Brother,Dzis, 1997, No. 5, p. 4.
5. Z. Brzеzinski, Game Plan, New York. 1986, pp. 9, 29.
6. Unofficial translation.
7. M. R. Beshloss, S. Talbott, Na Samom Vysokom Urovne, Moscow, 1994, p. 99.
8. Data of the ACDA cited in Dzis, 1998, No. 4.
9. S. Talbott, Amerika i Rossia V Menyashchemsya Mire, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 27 November 1996.
Опубликовано 14 мая 2014 года
© Portalus.ru, возможно немассовое копирование материалов при условии обратной индексируемой гиперссылки на Порталус.