Reacţiile unor experţi la Noua Doctrină Militară a Rusiei

Îmi cer scuze cititorilor care nu cunosc limba engleză, dar
m-am grabit să prezint publicului român reacţiile unor experţi cu
privire la Noua Doctrină Militară a Rusiei în care expansiunea NATO
este privită ca ameninţare la adresa securităţii naţionale şi care
reafirmă dreptul Rusiei de a folosi arme nucleare dacă este ameninţat
statul.
Noua doctrină militară care a primit acordul Kremlinului
consideră instalarea scutului antirachetă american în Europa drept o
ameninţare la adresa securităţii naţionale, la fel ca şi dorinţele de
expanasiune ale NATO în Europa de Est.
Russia’s new military doctrine approved


http://rt.com/Politics/2010-02-05/russia-military-doctrine-approved.html
Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the
use of any types of weapons of mass destruction against it or any of
its allies. President Medvedev has approved Russia’s new military
doctrine.
Along with the policy for nuclear deterrence the two documents
outline Moscow’s approach to military conflicts and use of nuclear
weapons through 2020.
Petiţie pentru organizarea unui REFERENDUM privind amplasarea scutului antirachetă american pe teritoriul României
The news came following a session of the National Security Council,
where the Russian president announced his approval to other members.
The texts of the documents were published on the Russian president’s
official website, Kremlin.ru, on Friday. The date of its publication, February 5, appeared to be quite symbolic – it coincided with the start of the 46th Munich Security Conference, which is focused on the future of global and European security.
Earlier, several officials involved in the creation of Russia’s new
military doctrine said it would provide more liberties in terms of the
use of nuclear weapons. Stronger reliance on nuclear deterrence is to
compensate for the downsizing of the Russian armed forces. The military
reduction, however, is part of a major military reform, which is aimed
at making the army better equipped to meet modern challenges.
Experts’ opinion:


Sergey Utkin, Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations:
“I think the doctrine itself is partly a PR stand. People issue
these sorts of documents for the general public to read them. It’s
obviously not for the military staff and I hope it won’t affect
relations with the West, because it is anti-Western to a certain
extent. I also hope that most of the Western countries, NATO countries,
will perceive it more as rhetoric.”
Ruslan Pukhov, Director of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies:
“In fact the new doctrine – especially in terms of use of
nuclear weapons – is even milder than the previous one approved back in
1993. Back then Russia abandoned the Soviet principle not to use
nuclear weapons first and stated it could be the first to use it in
case of some critical threat to its national security. Now the new
doctrine says “in response to the use of any types of weapons of mass
destruction,” which is already a precondition that hadn’t existed
before. We also understand that both chemical and biological types of
weapons are almost never used nowadays, so it’s practically about
nuclear attack only. I would even regard that softened wording as a
concession to the international community.”
Russia’s biggest military threats


“Despite the decrease in the possibility of unleashing a
large-scale aggression using conventional arms and nuclear weapons
against the Russian Federation, military threats to the Russian
Federation have increased in a number of areas,” reads the document.
According to the new doctrine, Russia views the expansion of NATO as
a primary threat to its security, as well as part of a tendency to give
NATO global security functions.
Another threat mentioned is the deployment of the strategic missile
defense system that undermines international stability and violates the
established balance of forces.
Arms deployment in space and the creation of new high-precision
conventional weapons are also listed as threats in the doctrine.
Experts’ opinion:


Ruslan Pukhov, Director of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies:
“First of all, we never know how the world will look like in 10
years. Secondly, even now there are several states that claim part of
Russia’s territory to be their national territory – for instance,
Japan. Also, the border hasn’t been demarked with some of Russia’s
neighbors, so we cannot exclude that some international alliance can
use armed forces against Russia and it will have to defend itself.”
Alexander Nikitin, Director of the Center for Euro-Atlantic Security of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations:
“There are indeed at least a few areas where the potential
dangers for Russia have increased. First of all it’s clearly the
territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the past few years the
control of the Kabul government over the regions of the country
dramatically decreased. So there are probabilities of expansion of
various military threats from those uncontrolled provinces toward the
north of Central Asia, where Russia created a military alliance with
five former Soviet states. No wonder that the last exercises of the
Collective Security Treaty Organization were focused on prevention of
interference by unauthorized armed groups and gangs from the
territories of nearby Islamic states into the territory of Central
Asia.”
“We should also understand that the appearance of nuclear
weapons in the hands of such states as Pakistan and North Korea, with
their unpredictable policies, creates new type of threat in comparison
to the times of the Cold War.”
Russia’s possible response


The new doctrine stipulates Russia’s right to use its armed forces beyond its borders “for
the purpose of the protection of the interests of the Russian
Federation and its citizens, as well as the maintenance of
international peace and security.”
Threats to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation and
to its constitutional order are also mentioned as potential tasks for
the military to deal with.
Experts’ opinion:


Ruslan Pukhov, Director of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies:
“I believe nobody should be surprised about those response
measures. The US and France openly reserve their right to protect their
citizens abroad, so why shouldn’t Russia do the same? I believe it’s a
good sign anyway that we act honestly and publicly, openly stating our
rights before we need to implement them, and not when it comes to
action.”
Alexander Nikitin, Director of the Center for Euro-Atlantic Security of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations:
“Actually, most countries, including most former Soviet states,
as well as most European and Asian states – all of them follow the
regular practice of the UN, that military forces can be used abroad
under certain conditions. Even the UN Charter, which prohibits the use
of force outside national borders, has two exceptions. The first
exception is Article 51, which allows for the use of military forces
for self-defense – that was exactly how Americans explained the start
of their operation in Afghanistan back in 2001; the second case is
Chapter 7 of the UN charter, where the use of force can be used
collectively by a group of nations in the case of clear and present
danger to international security caused by any state or any political
regime. That was the case with Iraq, which Russia had supported. So the
principle is not new at all, and even loyal to the UN Charter, as you
can see. Besides, there is a common principle in international law that
a country can use all means, including military ones, in case its
citizens are attacked somewhere abroad. This is exactly the case with
the American operation in Grenada in 1983, with numerous operations to
free diplomats taken hostage in various embassies, and finally with
Russia’s military involvement in South Ossetia in August last year.