by MEMRI
Russia-NATO Update is a new monthly review by the MEMRI Russian Media Studies Project, covering the latest news on Russia-NATO relations from the Russian and East European media.
On September 22, 2016, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey
Ryabkov spoke at the Russian Civic Chamber on military security issues in the context
of Russia-NATO relations. In his remarks, Ryabkov stated that Russia proposed to
the US the idea of developing a collective sector-based missile defense in
Europe.[1] He then added that
NATO has officially named itself a "nuclear alliance", since "its
nuclear doctrine provides for the possibility of launching a nuclear first
strike on potential opponents." Ryabkov also said that Russia is "seriously
worried" that the United States is planning to deploy its new nuclear aircraft
delivered bombs in Europe under the program of upgrading its nuclear arsenal.[2] As the Soviet
Union-Russia have frequently done in arms discussions concerning Europe,
Ryabkov clearly differentiates between the more constructive Europeans and
particularly Germany and the Americans. Below are excerpts from Ryabkov's
remarks:[3]
'The Ball Is In NATO's Court Now'
"The
military-political situation in Europe and the causes of its deterioration are
being discussed in a fairly heated manner at various bilateral and multilateral
forums, including the OSCE. The discussion has revealed that our opponents from
the United States and NATO, at this stage, are not looking to find common
ground. 'Containing' Russia is beginning to take on dynamics of its own, and 'openness
to dialogue' has taken a subordinate role.
"Westerners
continue to insist on the need to 'learn the lessons of the Ukraine crisis and
related events' from the perspective of 'strengthening' the OSCE political and
military tools. They would like to tighten, primarily, the provisions of the
Vienna Document on confidence-building measures that allegedly allow Russia to 'selectively'
fulfill its obligations, including in relation to the Ukraine crisis.
"We stand by
our principled position that it is imperative to overcome the crisis plaguing
the regime for conventional arms control in Europe, which should take into account
existing political and military realities in Europe. The ball is in NATO's
court now."[4]
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov. (Source: Sputniknews.com)
US' "Circumvention" Of The Russia
–NATO Founding Act And The Issue Of "Substantial Combat Forces"
"In addition
to a 'purely defensive' plan, enshrined in the Warsaw Summit, to deploy, on a
continuous rotational basis, four reinforced multinational battalion groups in
Poland and the Baltic States, we are aware of US plans to deploy, in Central
and Eastern Europe, additional military units near the Russian border. In
addition, NATO's focus on building up its presence on the sea and in the air in
the Black Sea region has been confirmed.
"All of that
is portrayed as a US initiative to 'build confidence' among its European
allies, and as a 'powerful political signal' about the unity of the alliance,
the solidity of transatlantic ties, and the commitment to obligations under
Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.[5] In
practical terms, it would mean an increase in the real presence of NATO troops
near our western borders and more weapons and military equipment in European
advanced depots. Of course, these plans are peddled as 'not violating' NATO
obligations under the Founding Act in part related to the non-deployment, on a
permanent basis, of 'substantial combat forces' on the eastern 'flank' of the
alliance.
"Even though
the specific parameters of what constitutes 'substantial combat forces' remain
unspecified, it can still be argued that the US plans to establish its
permanent rotational presence in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic
States (units will be rotated, but the materiel will remain in place), if
implemented, would mean a circumvention of the Founding Act's provisions on
waiving the obligation of 'permanent deployment.'
"We continue
to remind NATO of the absence of numerical parameters to define 'substantial
combat forces' and the specific proposals advanced by Russia on this account
back in 2008-2009."
The
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) And The Conventional Arms
Control in Europe (CAC)
"In the
declaration of the NATO Summit in Warsaw (as in Wales in 2014), the allies
reaffirmed their determination 'to preserve, strengthen, and modernize
conventional arms control in Europe.'[6] Nevertheless, in the two years since the Wales
summit, we have seen no practical steps on the part of NATO. Toward the end of
2014, the alliance more or less finished work on the CAC [Conventional Arms
Control in Europe] in Europe, but NATO members decided not to submit their
initiatives to 'non-bloc states,' including Russia, 'until the situation around
Ukraine normalizes.' So preparations for possible talks on the issue were
suspended. Instead, NATO members, especially recently, continued and even
intensified their accusations against us with regard to Russia's decision to
suspend its participation in the CFE [the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces
in Europe] and its resulting 'failure' to meet its obligations under the
Treaty.
"Over a long
period, at various international forums and in bilateral contacts, we have
repeatedly advocated for a substantial update of the arms control regime in
Europe and the need to bring it in line with the current military-political
realities on the continent. As is known, this had to do with the fact that the
older CFE Treaty became hopelessly outdated and it was impossible to return to
it, while its adapted version, which was adopted at the OSCE Istanbul Summit in
1999 and which we had urged our Western partners to ratify for almost eight
years, has not come into force.
"One of the
signals that the Europeans are once again showing interest in the issue was an
article by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, 'Greater Security
in Europe for All: Reviving Arms Control,' of August 26, 2016.[7] In
response, we held consultations in Moscow with a deputy chief for disarmament
and arms control in the German government. Naturally, the German vision of the
situation that has evolved in the European security sphere considerably differs
from the Russian view on a number of aspects, but it seems that the ball is
slowly starting to roll.
"We will continue
to closely watch the response to the German call from its allies, whose efforts
brought the conventional arms control dialogue to an impasse and froze it. For
our part, we are always open to discussion of international security and
stability issues based on equality and mutual respect for interests."
'The US Approach... Is
Based On The Desire To Enhance The Transparency Of The Russian Armed Forces'
"In its
Warsaw Summit declaration, NATO also declared the 'importance of modernizing'[8] the 2011 Vienna Document[9] 'to
ensure its continued relevance in the evolving security environment, including
through its substantive update in 2016."[10]
"In this
context, NATO members have lately been insisting on a substantive consideration
of their proposals that are on the table at the OSCE Forum in Vienna. This
refers, in particular, to two 'packages': [the one proposed by the] US and [the
other by] Germany.
"The US
approach (in principle, we could talk about a general NATO approach) is based
on the desire to enhance the transparency of the Russian Armed Forces, above
all, our various types of military activity, so as to, by modernizing the 2011
Vienna Document, at least partially compensate for the lost opportunities to 'x-ray'
us that they had before Russia suspended its participation in the CFE Treaty.
"Germany, as
the current holder of OSCE chairmanship, has incorporated some Russian ideas
from previous years into its initiatives. In addition, it proposes a number of
updates to the Vienna Document to improve conditions for the conduct of
verification activities and the establishment of military contacts.
"For our
part, we are explaining to our OSCE partners that it is futile to count on the modernization
of the Vienna Document given NATO's current policy of confrontation with
Russia, and that the bet on 'containment' is incompatible with the proposals
made by some NATO member countries to 'modernize' confidence- and
security-building measures. Our Western partners are inclined to work closely
with us in this area. However, at the same time, pressure is mounting. On top
of the traditional claims, there is now a new one: Russia's 'reluctance to
participate in the modernization of confidence- and security-building measures
in Europe...
The Formation Of US Global Missile Defense,
Including Its European Segment, Is Obviously A Destabilizing Factor
'NATO continues
building up its missile defense potential in Europe, implementing its Phased
Adaptive Approach. We have repeatedly voiced our concern over the deployment of
strategic infrastructure elements in the direct vicinity of our borders, which
is directly affecting our security interests. The formation of US global
missile defense, including its European segment, is obviously a destabilizing
factor because at a certain stage the latter may start to negatively affect our
strategic deterrent. It has not yet reached this stage but the potential of the
US-NATO missile shield will be enhanced. In this context we consider it
indicative that Washington and Brussels have not concealed their reluctance to
adjust their missile plans despite the adopted agreement on Iran's nuclear
program.
"We will
continue to carefully monitor developments and demonstrate to the Europeans the
inevitable adverse consequences of the US project's implementation. Russia has
always been ready for constructive and respectful dialogue on missile defense
issues. We have repeatedly proved this in practice by making proposals on
specific forms of cooperation in order to turn this issue from an 'irritant' to
concerted effort. Thus, we offered to the United States to use information from
Russian radars in Gabala [in Azerbaijan] and Armavir [in Russia] and suggested
the idea of building collective sector-based missile defense in Europe.
"The United
States and other NATO countries were not ready for the honest and equitable
cooperation proposed by Russia. We do not see any signs that they are ready to
consider the interests of both sides on a reciprocal basis or take measures to
enhance international stability, peace and security based on the principle of
equal security for all. Importantly, American and other NATO officials crudely
distort facts in their statements on the missile defense dialogue. They claim,
for one, that Russia allegedly cut off this dialogue on its own. We are
disseminating the true version of events via Foreign Ministry channels.
'We Are Seriously Worried That The United States
Is Planning To Deploy Its New Nuclear Air[craft Delivered] Bombs In Europe'
"The nuclear
factor continues to strongly influence security in Europe. NATO has officially
named itself a 'nuclear alliance.' Its nuclear doctrine provides for the
possibility of launching a nuclear first strike on potential opponents. Its
members, including non-nuclear states, are enhancing cooperation on joint nuclear
planning and handling US tactical nuclear arms that are deployed in some West
European countries, using carrier aircraft, crews and infrastructure of
non-nuclear countries. Such 'joint nuclear missions' of NATO members are a
serious challenge to non-proliferation because they directly contradict the
letter and spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"We are
seriously worried that the United States is planning to deploy its new nuclear
air[craft delivered] bombs in Europe under the program of upgrading its nuclear
arsenal. These bombs are less powerful but more precise, which may attest to
the intention to use them against military targets in densely populated areas
under certain military scenarios. In this way they are ceasing to be 'political
weapons' and becoming 'battlefield arms.' The impression is that the United
States is going to return to its nuclear brinkmanship, which was typical during
the times of confrontation between blocs.
"Indicatively,
all this is being done under the cover of the allegation of 'Russia's growing
nuclear threat.' Provisions of our Military Doctrine on using nuclear arms are
being openly distorted. The European public is being brainwashed to believe
that in the past few years Russia has been revising its views on the place and
role of nuclear weapons and putting increasingly greater emphasis on them,
which is untrue.
"The
deployment of launchers for anti-ballistic missiles in Romania (and potentially
in Poland) similar to those that are used on US warships to launch Tomahawk
mid-range cruise missiles has become a new element of the situation in Europe.
Deployment of such launchers on the ground may be considered a direct violation
of the INF Treaty by the United States."
Endnotes:
[1]
Under this concept, every country would be responsible for a particular sector
and therefore Russia would be responsible for the sector near it. Russian
President Dimitry Medvedev proposed the plan at the 2010 NATO-Russia Council
summit in Lisbon. Kremlin.ru, November 23, 2011..
[2]
Ryabkov is apparently referring to the B61 Mod 12 aircraft-delivered
thermonuclear bomb that is highly accurate but can be configured to carry a
yield of as low as 0.3 kilotons. The bomb can be fitted on the new US F-35
stealth fighter. The low yield and high accuracy could increase the temptation
of using it as a tactical nuclear weapon against targets that would have been
ruled out in the past due to extensive collateral damage. See Dave Majumdar,
" America's Most Dangerous Nuclear Weapon Passes Critical Test", National
Interest, November 20, 2015.
[3] Mid.ru,
September 22, 2016.
[4] The sentence refers to an
Interfax’s interview with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg (July 1,
2016), in which he said that the "ball” is in Russia’s court in returning
to partnership with NATO. See interview with Stoltenberg:
http://www.interfax.com/interview.asp?id=685353
[5] See
The Washington Treaty: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
Article 5 of the Washington
Treaty states the following: "The Parties agree that an armed attack
against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an
attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed
attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or
collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith,
individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems
necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the
security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures
taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security
Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken
the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and
security.”
[6] See
the Warsaw Summit Communiqué: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm
[7]
See German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s article:
https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/AAmt/160826_BM_FAZ_Artikel.html
[8]
See the Warsaw Summit Communiqué:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm
[9]
See the Vienna Document 2011 on Confidence And Security Building Measures: https://www.osce.org/fsc/86597?download=true
[10]
See the Warsaw Summit Communiqué:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm
MEMRI
Source: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9471.htm
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment