NATO Expansion, Missile Deployments
And Russia's New Military Doctrine
by Rick Rozoff
www.globalresearch.ca/, February
13, 2010
Developments related to military and security
matters in Europe and Asia have been numerous this month and condensed
into less than a week of meetings, statements and initiatives
on issues ranging from missile shield deployments to the unparalleled
escalation of the world's largest war and from a new security
system for Europe to a new Russian military doctrine.
A full generation after the end of the
Cold War and almost that long since the breakup of the Soviet
Union, the past week's events are evocative of another decade
and another century. Twenty or more years ago war in Afghanistan
and controversial missile placements in Europe were current news
in a bipolar world.
Twenty years afterward, with no Soviet
Union, no Warsaw Pact and a greatly diminished and truncated Russia,
the United States and NATO have militarized Europe to an unprecedented
degree - in fact subordinating almost the entire continent under
a Washington-dominated military bloc - and have launched the most
extensive combat offensive in South Asia in what is already the
longest war in the world.
Of 44 nations in Europe and the Caucasus
(excluding microstates and the NATO pseudo-state of Kosovo), only
six - Belarus, Cyprus, Malta, Moldova, Russia and Serbia - have
escaped having their citizens conscripted by NATO for deployment
to the Afghan war front. That number will soon shrink yet further.
Of those 44 countries, only two - Cyprus
and Russia - are not members of NATO or its Partnership for Peace
transitional program and Cyprus is under intense pressure to join
the second.
On February 4 and 5 all 28 NATO defense
chiefs met for two days of deliberations in Istanbul, Turkey which
concentrated on the war in Afghanistan, the bloc's military deployment
in Kosovo and accelerated plans for expanding a world-wide interceptor
missile system to Eastern Europe and the Middle East. That gathering
followed by eight days a two-day meeting of the NATO Military
Committee in Brussels which included 63 military chiefs from NATO
nations and 35 Troop Contributing Nations, as the bloc designates
them, including the top military commanders of Israel and Pakistan.
That conference focused on the Afghan war and NATO's new Strategic
Concept to be officially formalized at an Alliance summit later
this year.
The commander of all 150,000 U.S. and
NATO troops in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, attended
both two-day meetings. Pentagon chief Robert Gates presided over
the second and "Afghanistan and missile defense are examples
of the new priorities that Gates wants NATO to focus on."
[1]
As indicated by the number of Chiefs of
Defense Staff in attendance at the Brussels meetings - 63 - NATO's
reach has been extended far beyond Europe and North America over
the past decade. Troops serving under the bloc's command in Afghanistan
come from every inhabited continent, the Middle East and Oceania:
Australia has the largest non-member contingent with over 1,500
soldiers, and other non-European nations like Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bahrain, Colombia, Egypt, Georgia, New Zealand, Singapore, South
Korea and the United Arab Emirates have troops in Afghanistan
or on the way there.
On the day the Istanbul NATO defense ministers
meeting began Romanian President Traian Basescu announced that
he had granted the Obama administration's request to base U.S.
interceptor missiles in his nation, following by five weeks the
news that U.S. Patriot anti-ballistic missiles would be stationed
in a part of Poland a half hour drive from Russia's westernmost
border.
The next day, February 5, which marked
two months since the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between
the U.S. and Russia regulating the reduction of nuclear weapons
and delivery systems expired, [2] the Russian Interfax news agency
announced that "President Dmitry Medvedev has endorsed Russia's
military doctrine and basic principles of its nuclear deterrence
policy in the period up to 2020." [3]
The same source cited Security Council
Deputy Secretary and former Chief of the General Staff of the
Armed Forces Yury Baluyevsky commenting on the new doctrine: "It
is planned to develop the ground, sea, and aerial components of
the nuclear triad.Russia needs to guarantee its consistent democratic
development using such a stability guarantor as nuclear weapons,
as a form of strategic deterrence.Russia reserves the right to
use nuclear weapons only if its very existence as a state is endangered."
[4]
Commentary in the Indian daily The Hindu
specified that "The doctrine details 11 external military
threats to Russia, seven of which are traced to the West. NATO´s
eastward expansion and its push for a global role are identified
as the number one threat to Russia."
The feature added: "The U.S. is the
source of other top threats listed in the doctrine even though
the country is never mentioned in the document. These include
attempts to destabilise countries and regions and undermine strategic
stability; military build-ups in neighbouring states and seas;
the creation and deployment of strategic missile defences, as
well as the militarisation of outer space and deployment of high-precision
non-nuclear strategic systems."
Regarding the timing of the authorization
of Russia's new military strategy, the report connected it with
recent U.S. missile shield decisions and the START talks between
Washington and Moscow still dragging on.
"The new defence doctrine was signed
into law and published a day after Romania announced plans to
deploy U.S. interceptor missiles as part of a global missile shield
fiercely opposed by Russia. Earlier reports said the Kremlin had
been holding back the doctrine, prepared last year, because it
did not want to jeopardise talks with the U.S. on a new nuclear
arms pact that are still going on." [5]
A similar observation was made in a report
from China's Xinhua News Agency:
"Analysts say the Romanian decision
came at a crucial moment when Washington and Moscow are about
to sign a successor document to the expired Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (START-1). Therefore, the move may upset the thawing Russia-U.S.
relations and put their bilateral ties to test." [6]
The new Russian Military Doctrine (in
Russian at http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/461) listed under
the heading of "Main external threats of war" the following
concerns, with the most pressing first:
- The goal of NATO to arrogate to itself
the assumption of global functions in violation of international
law, and to expand the military infrastructure of NATO nations
to Russia's borders including through expansion of the bloc
- Attempts to destabilize the situation
in individual states and regions and the undermining of strategic
stability
- The deployment of military contingents
of foreign states (and blocs) on territories neighboring Russia
and its allies, as well as in adjacent waters
- The establishment and deployment of
strategic missile defense systems that undermine global stability
and violate the balance of forces in the nuclear field, as well
as the militarization of outer space and the deployment of strategic
non-nuclear systems precision weapons
- Territorial claims against Russia and
its allies and interference in their internal affairs
- The proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, missiles and missile technology, increasing the number
of states possessing nuclear weapons
- The violation by a state of international
agreements, and failure to ratify and implement previously signed
international treaties on arms limitation and reduction
- The use of military force in the territories
of states bordering Russia in violation of the UN Charter and
other norms of international law
- The escalation of armed conflicts on
territories neighboring Russia and allied nations
At the 46th annual Munich Security Conference
held on February 6 and 7 NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen
said "I have to say that this new doctrine does not reflect
the real world," though any impartial perusal of the above
nine points it addresses would confirm that it portrays the world
exactly as it is. Regrettably.
For example, after Romania's president
revealed that U.S. missiles would be deployed in the country,
a statement by the nation's Foreign Affairs Ministry said "Romania
was and continues to be a consistent promoter in NATO of the project
regarding the gradual-adaptive development of the anti-missile
defence system in Europe.The decision to take part in the U.S.
system is in full agreement with what the NATO summits in Bucharest
in 2008 and in Strasbourg-Kehl in 2009 decided in this respect."
[7]
On the first day of the Munich Security
Conference Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in his
address that "With the disintegration of the Soviet Union
and the Warsaw Treaty Organization a real opportunity emerged
to make the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe] a full-fledged organization providing equal security for
all states of the Euro-Atlantic area. However, this opportunity
was missed, because the choice was made in favor of the policy
of NATO expansion, which meant not only preserving the lines that
separated Europe during the Cold War into zones with different
levels of security, but also moving those lines eastward. The
role of the OSCE was, in fact, reduced to servicing this policy
by means of supervision over humanitarian issues in the post-Soviet
space."
He continued with a review of the failure
of post-Cold War security measures in Europe:
"That the principle of indivisibility
of security in the OSCE does not work doesn't take long to prove.
Let's recall the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
in 1999, when a group of OSCE countries, bound by this political
declaration, committed aggression against another OSCE country,
which was also covered by this principle.
"Everyone also remembers the tragedy
of August 2008 in Transcaucasia, where a member country of the
OSCE which is bound by various commitments in the sphere of nonuse
of force used this force, including against peacekeepers of another
member country of the OSCE, in violation not only of the Helsinki
Final Act, but also of the concrete peacekeeping agreement devoted
to the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict, which excludes use of
force." [8]
He was followed the next day by NATO chief
Rasmussen, who not only failed to respond to the accusation that
peace and security in Europe were endangered by his military organization's
relentless drive toward Russia's borders, but advocated NATO involvement
beyond the continent to encompass the world.
In claiming "that in an age of globalised
insecurity, our territorial defence must begin beyond our borders,"
Rasmussen urged "that NATO should become a forum for consultation
on worldwide security issues."
His address also included the demand to
"take NATO's transformation to a new level - by connecting
the Alliance with the broader international system in entirely
new ways."
Russia cannot propose a common security
system for Europe, but NATO can dictate an international one.
Rasmussen boasted that the NATO-led International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan "will further grow
in strength this year, with more than 39,000 extra troops,"
in the sanguinary killing field the West has created in the long-suffering
country.
Not only did he not express a single reservation
about a war that is now in its tenth calendar year and growing
deadlier by the day, but he celebrated it as a model for the world:
"Our Afghanistan experienceleads me to [another] point: the
need to turn NATO into a forum for consultation on worldwide security
issues.NATO is a framework which has already proven to be uniquely
able to combine security consultation, military planning and actual
operations for more than just NATO members themselves. Again,
look at Afghanistan." [9]
Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian
Duma's International Affairs Committee, also spoke at the Munich
Security Conference and said "I believe the problem of NATO
today is that NATO develops in reverse order - it tries to act
globally more and more but continues to think locally.As soon
as NATO starts to reach beyond its borders this is no longer just
an internal matter for NATO."
He also "accused the alliance of
provoking the Georgia-Russia conflict by promising Tbilisi eventual
membership." [10]
Current Russian deputy prime minister
and former defense minister Sergei Ivanov spoke at Munich too
and in regard to the stalled START talks said "It is impossible
to talk seriously about the reduction of nuclear capabilities
when a nuclear power is working to deploy protective systems against
vehicles to deliver nuclear warheads possessed by other countries,"
reminding conference participants that "Russia unilaterally
cut its tactical nuclear arsenals by 75% in the early 1990s, but
the United States did respond with a similar move and even failed
to withdraw its weapons from Europe." [11]
Two days after the Munich Security Conference
the secretary of the Security Council of Russia, Nikolai Patrushev,
reiterated Lavrov's and Kosachev's earlier concerns, stating "We
have grave doubts [that Russia will be more secure due to NATO
expansion.] NATO represents a rather serious threat to us."
A major Russian news agency wrote that
"Patrushev criticized NATO for its continued enlargement
efforts, including its encouragement of Georgia's and Ukraine's
bids to join the alliance.
"He also blamed NATO for arming and
preparing Georgia for an attack on South Ossetia and Abkhazia,
and said NATO countries continued to supply Tbilisi with weaponry
despite Russia's protests." [12]
To substantiate those concerns, the 10th
annual NATO Week began in Ukraine on February 9 and at the same
time the government of Georgia "endorsed the Annual National
Program of cooperation with NATO [ANP] for 2010," [13] an
initiative launched by NATO shortly after Georgia's invasion of
South Ossetia and war with Russia in August of 2008.
War in the Balkans, war in South Asia,
war in the Caucasus. This is the model NATO calls for replicating
on a world scale. And as the bloc moves further eastward it brings
in his wake troops and military equipment, air and naval bases,
and missile shield installations.
On February 9 Chief of the General Staff
of the Armed Forces of Russia Nikolai Makarov warned "The
development and establishment of the (U.S.) missile shield is
directed against the Russian Federation." [14]
He also said "that differences with
the United States over plans for a missile defense shield were
holding up a nuclear arms reduction treaty" between Washington
and Moscow, that "the differences had so far prevented the
signing of the arms treaty." [15]
In further reference to the START negotiations,
he stated "U.S. missile defense plans are a threat to Russian
national security and have slowed down progress on a new arms
control treaty with Washington."
In Makarov's own words, "The treaty
on strategic offensive weapons we are currently working on must
take into account the link between defensive and offensive strategic
weapons. This link is very close, they are absolutely interdependent.
It would be wrong not to take the missile defense into account."
[16]
Earlier in the week spokesman for the
Russian Foreign Ministry Andrei Nesterenko reiterated his nation's
demand that U.S. tactical nuclear arms should be removed from
Europe. He said that the "withdrawal of American tactical
weapons from Europe back to the United States would be welcome.
It should be accompanied by complete and irreversible demolition
of the entire infrastructures supporting the deployment of such
weapons in Europe," and reaffirmed his nation's position
that "nuclear arms should be deployed only in the territory
of the states possessing such weapons." [17]
Six days afterward, to add to Russia's
foreboding and to demonstrate Western recalcitrance on the issue,
the insufferable ex-NATO secretary general George Robertson was
quoted in the Turkish press acknowledging that the U.S. has from
40 to 90 nuclear weapons at Turkey's Incirlik Air Base. Lord Robertson
made the statement in the context of demanding U.S. warheads remain
in Germany. He is of course neither a German nor an American but
is a former NATO chieftain and as such considers himself entitled
to determine matters of this grave nature.
Also on February 10 a top Polish presidential
aide, Wladyslaw Stasiak, was in Washington to discuss the imminent
deployment of American Patriot Advanced Capability-3 theater anti-ballistic
missiles. He met with members of the U.S. National Security Council
and with "experts at the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation
and the Center for International and Strategic Studies."
Afterward he stated "We talked about
the future of NATO in the context of a new strategic concept,
as well as present day NATO, especially concerning Article 5 and
its practical implementation," referring to the Alliance's
military intervention provision. [18]
On the same day a spokesman for the Ukrainian
Foreign Ministry expressed concerns over U.S. missiles being deployed
in its fellow Black Sea nation Romania. "As a neighboring
country with Romania, we cannot let U.S. plans for a missile shield
deployment in close proximity to our border go unnoticed, especially
since some elements are expected to be based in the Black Sea."
[19]
Vladimir Voronin, until last September
president of Moldova, which borders both Romania and Ukraine,
recently warned that U.S. missile deployments in and off the coast
of Romania "could turn neighboring Moldova into a front-line
area" and that "Romania's position on the U.S. missile
shield and also open support for it from the Moldovan current
leadership could have disastrous consequences for security in
the region." [20]
In doing so he echoed Russian ambassador
to NATO Dmitry Rogozin who two days before said "U.S. plans
to base a missile-defense system in eastern Europe are a pretext
to encroach on Russia's borders" and "The U.S. is using
Iran's actions to globalize its system of missile defense."
[21]
Four days after his previous comments,
Moldova's Voronin said that "The US ABM deployment in Romania
is bringing Europe back to the 'Cold War'" and that he "doubts
that US ABMs are targeted against Iran's threat only." [22]
The Pentagon opened a missile radar base
in Israel's Negev Desert in 2008, manned by over 100 military
personnel, which has a range of 2,900 miles, almost three times
the distance between the Israeli and Iranian capitals. The forward-based
X-band radar at the Nevatim Air Base can monitor all of eastern
and much of southern Russia.
The more the U.S. and its NATO allies
thunder against alleged Iranian threats, the tighter the Western
interceptor missile cordon is secured around Russia.
On February 10 the local press wrote that
"the Czech Republic is in discussions with the Obama administration
to host a command center for the United States' altered missile
defense plan." [23]
The following day the Chinese ambassador
to Russia, Li Hui, spoke with one of his host country's main news
agencies and "reiterated Beijing's concerns that [U.S. missile
shield] plans might disturb the current strategic balance and
stability and escalate tensions" and correctly characterizing
the true scope of the American interceptor missile project "said
the creation of a global missile defense undermined international
efforts to bring nuclear proliferation to a halt." [24]
His warnings, like those of Russia's,
went unheeded in Washington and among its NATO allies. On February
12 Poland approved a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the
United States for "100 US soldiers to be stationed in Poland
as part of the shield, which will include Patriot missiles and
SM-3s." [25] This may be the first confirmation that American
ship-based (and/or land-based adaptations of) Standard Missile-3
longer-range interceptors will be deployed along with Patriot
Advanced Capability-3 missiles near Russia's western border.
Also on February 12 Bulgarian Prime Minister
Boiko Borisov revealed that the U.S. will hold talks with his
government to station potential first strike-related interceptor
missile components in the Black Sea nation. U.S. Ambassador James
Warlick confirmed that preliminary discussions have already occurred.
The Bulgarian head of state explained the rationale for his willingness
to take the risky move: "My opinion is that we have to show
solidarity. When you are a member of NATO, you have to work for
the collective security." [26]
Considering all of the above, that the
Russian government permitted former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine
Albright and her "Group of Experts"/"Wise Men"
coterie to promote NATO's new Strategic Concept at a talk at the
Moscow State Institute of Foreign Relations on February 11 is
a travesty, an abomination. The only venue the nation's authorities
should have accorded her is a jail cell.
NATO is not the international security
provider it now attempts to pose as. It is not a partner to the
United Nations, which it has overshadowed and rendered toothless
and pathetic, or any other international or regional organization.
It is not the foundation for a worldwide "alliance of democracies."
NATO is a lethal, lawless warfighting
axis which unilaterally reserves the right to repeat its armed
aggression in the Balkans and South Asia on a global scale. It
is an affront and a threat to humanity.
_Notes__1) Bloomberg News, February 4,
2010_2) With Nuclear, Conventional Arms Pacts Stalled, U.S. Moves
Missiles And Troops To Russian Border Stop NATO, January 22, 2010_http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/with-nuclear-conventional-arms-pacts-stalled-u-s-moves-missiles-and-troops-to-russian-border
_3) Interfax, February 5, 2010_4) Ibid_5) Vladimir Radyuhin, New
Russian doctrine sees NATO, U.S. as main threat_The Hindu, February
7, 2010_6) Xinhua News Agency, February 8, 2010_7) Financiarul,
February 6, 2010_8) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian
Federation, February 8, 2010 _http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/0/49F4C4EB6473C1E5C32576C500311EB4
_9) NATO in the 21st Century: Towards Global Connectivity Speech
by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Munich
Security Conference _http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_61395.htm?selectedLocale=en
_10) Reuters, February 7, 2010_11) Russian Information Agency
Novosti, February 6, 2010_12) Russian Information Agency Novosti,
February 9, 2010_13) Georgia Times, February 10, 2010_14) Reuters,
February 9, 2010_15) Reuters, February 9, 2010_16) Associated
Press, February 9, 2010_17) Itar-Tass, February 4, 2010_18) Polish
Radio, February 10, 2010_19) RosBusinessConsulting, February 10,
2010_20) Russian Information Agency Novosti, February 7, 2010_21)
Bloomberg News, February 5, 2010_22) Voice of Russia, February
11, 2010_23) Prague Post, February 10, 2010_24) Voice of Russia,
February 11, 2010_25) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, February 12, 2010_26)
Reuters, February 12, 2010
NATO page
American Empire page
Home Page