Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

USA, European Union and Russia: Perspectives of Military Cooperation

D. Pobedash

Ural State University

After the demise of the Soviet Union that officially had been fighting for peace and disarmament for decades, Russia worked out her own military doctrine. Provisions of this doctrine are more realistic than some of the former Soviet propaganda slogans, but their being realistic allows some experts to talk about an aggressive posture of this new doctrine. Russian hard-liners, in their turn, keep talking about the increasing threat of NATO expansion and insist on further development, modernization and enlargement of Russian nuclear arsenal, which they see as the only deterrent to this threat. Fortunately, Russian foreign policy at the moment seems to be quite balanced and flexible, Europe-oriented and open for possibilities of broader cooperation with the European Union.

Some US military experts maintain that the existing Russian military doctrine reflects global objectives of the Russian Federation, which changed dramatically after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It also reflects economic problems Russia is facing. In their opinion, Russia places the main emphasis on the importance of nuclear weapons, allocates significant resources to renewal of its nuclear arsenal, especially mobile and silo-based ICBMs and SLBMs.[1] 

Moreover, it is necessary to mention that according to this doctrine (accepted on November 2, 1993 at a Security Council sitting) Russia renounces its 1982 pledge not to resort to nuclear first strike option. As S. B. Ivanov, Defense Minister of Russian Federation, put it, “Russia has never declared that considers it possible to resort to first nuclear strike nor does Russia declare it now. At the same time, Russia does not undertake not to resort to such an option.” [2] Conception of National Security of Russian Federation enumerates a number of measures necessary to secure national interests. One of such measures is “maintenance of nuclear forces capable of causing predetermined damage to any aggressor state under any circumstances”.[3] As far as first nuclear strike option is concerned, Russia (according to A. Arbatov’s analysis) reserves to itself the right to use nuclear weapons against any nuclear power, against any non-nuclear state allied to a nuclear power, against any country which is not a member of NPT signed in 1968.[4]

All this makes it possible for some experts to speak about increased aggressiveness of Russian military doctrine and about lowering of the nuclear use threshold, though Russian Defense Minister explicitly refuted such accusations.[5]

Russian hard-liners, however, claim  that the state pays too little attention to matters of national security and insist on increase of nuclear arsenal, strengthening and development of strategic nuclear forces.

In an article, published in “Pravda” – the mouthpiece of Communists – Anatoly Baranov[6] asserts that all strategic nuclear forces, inherited from the USSR, will have deteriorated by 2012. According to his analysis, Russia will have not more than 100 mobile ICBMs Topol-M (SS-27), while efficient deterrence of potential aggressors demands at least 1000 warheads. That means – in his opinion – that if Russian government wants to save the country, not less than 300 ICBMs Topol-M (equipped with MIRVs with three warheads each) will have to be deployed by 2012.

Desire to see Russia as a super-power is often the only argument to justify a further nuclear build-up. But, attempts to reach nuclear parity with the USA will be suicidal for Russian economy. On the other hand, if Russian strategic nuclear arsenal is cut down to about 500 warheads (and that, according to A. Arbatov, is the level to be reached by 2010, if no additional financing is provided and no additional weapons are deployed) it will minimize financial burden but preserve the status of Russia as a nuclear power really capable of destroying any aggressor.[7] Unfortunately, it happens rather too often that not only military circles and national-chauvinists,[8] but even leaders of Russian Orthodox Church[9] speak in a very militant and belligerent way, frequently urge the government to increase nuclear arsenal dramatically, and even directly demand that Russians rise up in arms and destroy the inhuman West.

Russia cannot afford not to cooperate with NATO and there is no alternative to it, at least not in the nearest future. Europe is too important for the USA to abandon NATO, which guarantees American military presence and capabilities of power projection in Europe, as a tool which allows the USA to exercise control over European political and military structures. Having analyzed quite an amount of recent writings on Political Science, A. I. Utkin argues that the most effective way for the USA to preserve their dominant position in the world is to exert control over the second most important region

in the world – Western Europe. America justifies preservation and even further development of NATO structures[10] – in other words, her military presence in Europe – first, by the necessity to counter possible restoration of  Russia (and it is emphasized that, although Russia does not possess superior conventional forces as it was the case with the Soviet Union, but it still is a nuclear superpower) under a more aggressive leadership, that could become a threat to European countries; second, American military presence is justified by the necessity to deter German ambitions.[11]

European countries can consider preservation of NATO advantageous for themselves due to several reasons:

• The USA bear most costs connected with maintenance of NATO, while the alliance, in spite of profound and significant changes in its strategy, still makes it its main goal to deal with issues of guaranteeing peace and stability in Europe;
• The USA share some military technologies and weapons with their European partners;
• Becoming a member of this alliance allows a country to gain prestige, proves its status of a power which enjoys full rights and is equal to other actors on the world stage.

On June 2000 V. Putin signed Strategy to Develop Relations with the European Union in Mid-term Perspective (2000-2010). It is emphasized in the very first paragraph of this document that it is linked with the Conception of National Security of Russian Federation.[12]

The Strategy is aimed at development of strategic partnership between the European Union and Russian Federation and defines measures to reach that goal, the first items in the priority list are:

• to guarantee security of Europe by means of European countries, without isolation from the USA or NATO, but without their monopoly on the continent;
• to work out posture of Russian Federation towards defense identity of the European Union with involvement of Western European Union;
• to develop political and military contacts with Western European Union, as a part of the European Union;
• to develop practical cooperation in sphere of security (peace-making, crisis management, different aspects of arms limitations and reduction). Such cooperation should counter-balance NATO-centrism in Europe.[13]

The USA should not be too worried about Russian desire to broaden and deepen cooperation with the European Union. First, the USA and European countries have developed quite strong political, economic and other ties; a direct Russian attempt to incite hostility between them would result at least in distrust towards Russia. Second, if democratic and stable Russia becomes a part of Europe – and there can be no doubt, that Russia will not be able to dominate Europe in foreseeable future – it would prevent a possibility of resurrection of imperial ambitions and Russia would not turn its back on Europe in favor of China, for example.[14]

Judging from clauses of the Strategy to Develop Relations with the European Union in Mid-term Perspective, it would seem reasonable to try and predict the following possible ways of cooperation in the military sphere:

• coordination of efforts in guaranteeing security and stability in Europe, including measures against religious and nationalist extremism. Russian leaders directly set the task to take drastic measures in order to preserve OSCE as the key pillar of European security.[15] It would seem quite realistic that such cooperation could lead to creation and development of joint military structures, possibly as peace-keeping forces, but also may result in closer cooperation of information, technological and reconnaissance structures; strategic and tactical planning could also be done in closer cooperation.
• Reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons in Europe. That is quite possible, as ideological confrontation of the Cold War gradually disappears; it would also help Russia to cut down expenses of maintaining its nuclear arsenal.
• Cooperation against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, means of their delivery and dual-purpose technologies – after September 11 it might become one of the major directions of joint Russo-Euro-American work in strategic military cooperation.
• Cooperation in space. The Strategy speaks of the necessity to take measures for realization of large-scale joint projects in space exploration, including cooperation in creation European global positioning system, new systems of satellite communication.[16] There might be even a possibility of some joint efforts in elaboration of European missile defense.
• Scientific and technological cooperation. The Strategy sets the task to study together with the European Union possibilities of preparation and implementation of a program of rapprochement and partial integration of scientific and technical potential of Russian Federation and  European Union, Russia is going to share the latest achievements, including those of defense industry, with European countries in exchange of support of Russian science.[17] 

Perspectives of strategic military cooperation of Russian Federation and European Union:

More than 2/3 of US foreign investments are in Europe.[18] The USA need a stable Europe – and stable, economically developed Russia is an important factor of guaranteeing stability and security in Europe. Russia can not and should not pose any tangible military threat to European countries, but cooperation with it can and should serve the purpose of making Europe stable and secure.

Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most famous hawks of the Cold War, admits that national democratic Russia is geopolitically desirable both for Europe and for the USA, will be a source of stability in the constantly changing Eurasian complex.[19] In his opinion, US national interests demand that ties with Europe be strengthened and developed and Russia is to be included into that combination. He sees it as US long-term task to support both economic revival and democratic changes in Russia, but prevent resurrection of a Eurasian empire, that would hinder the process of US reaching their geostrategic goal of formation a Euro-Atlantic system, into which Russia could be included as well.[20]

George W. Bush speaks along the same lines, “Russia can make an important contribution to maintaining peace and stability in Europe and the world”.[21] The same idea was expressed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz on February 2, 2002 at Munich Conference on European Security, “Today we have an historic opportunity to build a new relationship with Russia. Recently, the United States and Russia have engaged in a new dialogue that we hope will fashion a new strategic relationship – one that puts Cold War animosities behind us, and that also contributes a new role of Russia in Europe”[22]. Thus, American political leaders constantly emphasize importance of Russia for peace and stability in Europe. However, they also lay stress on importance of NATO for that, trying to secure their hold on this continent, which is a geopolitical priority for them.

Nevertheless, both Russian[23] and some European  (for example, Martin Winter from Frankfurter Rundschau[24]) – when  discussing matters of European security – sometimes run into extremes saying that NATO is to disappear from the political scene in the nearest future. Martin Winter even came to the conclusion that NATO died on September 11, 2001.[25] Such assertions should be regarded quite critically, taking into account how important NATO structures are for the USA.

It is but natural, that quite controversial interests of different countries and blocs clash in Europe. But, as all actors are very concerned about maintenance of stability and security in Europe and realize that Russia could play quite an important role in it, it would seem safe to predict that strategic military cooperation between Russia and European Union will be developing. The USA will keep highlighting the importance of NATO, of course.

On the other hand, direct cooperation between European Union and Russia through purely European structures could be of interest for EU member-states as such cooperation would allow Europeans to resolve their inner problems without resorting to USA, whose interests do not necessarily coincide with interests of European countries.

European politicians also speak of necessity to cooperate closer with Russia, and mention some common EU-Russian interests. Dr Kehrer, Austrian Consul General in Chicago, mentioned it in her press-release “The European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy – Where Do We Stand?” of February 13, 2002[26], that:

• There are certain controversies between the USA and the European Union;
• Europe is very likely to reject a secondary role in the system of international relations which is being imposed on it, especially in dealing with Middle East issues;
• The USA – particularly the Congress – have not decided yet, whether they will support a stronger Europe with independent military capabilities;
• Development of relations with Russia – the largest and most important neighbor of the European Union, with whom EU has very close ties – is one of important directions of EU foreign policy;
• If US-Russian relations (that have improved since September 11) deteriorate because of unilateral measures taken by the USA in matters of disarmament, Europe will be unlikely to support such US policy.

It is worth mentioning that some American political leaders also support use of UNO and OSCE structures, but not exclusively NATO, to maintain stability and security in Europe. It was the official opinion of Clinton Administration that NATO, OSCE and European Union are the three pillars of security, prosperity and democracy on the continent.[27]