The "reset" in relations between Russia and the U.S. has practically on all sides of the international life of our country. Including the relationship with NATO. An important part of this relationship — military-technical and military cooperation. Successes and difficulties of such cooperation, the task of the responsible editor of the European missile defense "NVO" Victor Litovkina told Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov. This is his first interview for prints after destination for the newest post.
— Anatoly Ivanovich, the first question that hunt to ask — is obvious. How is it that the Ministry of Defence was a man who is engaged in international cooperation? And why do you come from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Ministry of Defence?
— I wish to say at once that it is not engaged in international cooperation, and do, and I wish to highlight this, international military and military-technical cooperation. Obviously, this did not happen suddenly.
I know that Anatoly E. Serdyukov has long been thought to strengthen this unit in the ministry in view of the fact that in the near future due to the different states of the Russian Federation in the military are developing intensively. This is due first and with the new look of our army, and neuvvyazkami modernization of the armed forces, and with the development of military-technical cooperation. There are new challenges in the military sphere — the fight against terrorism, piracy, etc. Intensified cooperation within the CSTO, CIS. Activated communication lines Russia-NATO and Russia-EU relations.
I do not know how it will pan out to me. Need an extra boost by internationalist military interaction. This required support of diplomats who know firsthand the difficulties international security. Need calm and reasoned zabugornom tell our partners that this Russian Ministry of Defense, which is to reform in our armed forces, for which this upgrade. How will it be, since we are talking about an international military cooperation, look abroad? Usvoyut whether there who se Russian fighter? Not the one that caricatured in some Western movies, and modern fighter, using modern weapons, which is ready to defend the national interests of his country, ready with warriors from other countries to find answers to today's challenges and dangers. Unfortunately, the number of such calls will be decreases.
Now we have carried out military cooperation with 70 countries. And all this economy should be, as they say, the manager. A person who has a certain ability and who will coordinate all the work and increase it. We have calculated and found that in the year before we have with France in the military band were 16 joint events, and this year — already 66. In this case, it is not a "tour", and certain activities in the fight against terrorism, the work of rescue at sea, the interaction of the fleets, the Army …
— Again, a "Mistral".
— Yes, the "Mistral". I have brought to you the example of France, as it happened that we were there not so long ago with Eduardovich Anatoly Serdyukov. He negotiated the "Mistral", attending an exhibition at Le Bourget. We are very interested in modernizing the armed forces of other countries' experience. By the way, I was entrusted to make a presentation about the experience of the reform of our armed forces in a meeting with the ambassadors of NATO in Sochi on July 4. On the part of NATO troops was shown a lot of enthusiasm for the experience, to the results. It turned out that NATO colleagues want to make discussions on the topic a regular basis. They plan to continue contacts in Brussels, to get a better idea of what is happening.
— In other words, if you go back to the question that I asked, you have certain areas of military-technical cooperation. And I would like to understand which of their major?
— For us all the directions that are given to us the defense minister, chief. Obviously, I am one with them can not cope. Especially in view of the tremendous scale of our ministry. But we are trying to do their job by now a well-known principle of "one window". Naturally, I did not decide to approach the problem of foreign military ship to a port in the country. But the coordination of this work, to help, to try to make it more efficient, more RAM — that's my little problem that I'm trying to do, along with staff from the central office of international military cooperation. Incidentally, experts at working class, the true diplomats and military personnel.
— One of these challenges, as I imagine it's relationship with NATO. And first on the dilemma of missile defense. What are the main in relations between Russia and NATO, the Ministry of Defense and our alliance, and which have the ability to solve the problem of missile defense? The Lisbon summit of the Russia-NATO Council in the autumn of last year gave, if I may say so, the go-ahead for the solution of this difficulty, there was even a set period of time — in June 2011. But in Brussels on June 8, nor in Sochi on July 4 parties have not reached an agreement. All postponed to 2012, at a summit in May in Chicago. I know we talk about the fact that things will work out early, but the hunt to impose.
— I would also like to hope that everything will turn out. And of course, the outcome of the meeting in Sochi clearly demonstrate that there is a problem between NATO and Russia. But I wish to emphasize that at the meeting with the ambassadors of NATO Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev showed true spirit of the Russian Federation to the dialogue and the search for a compromise. It is necessary to specifically say, journalists are usually "tail" of what I say, for some reason omitted. The trade-off is likely, but not at the expense of the public interest of, not by lowering its defenses.
A problem of missile defense is very easy. It has existed for several decades. I had to take it up in the late 90's, when Americans began to reconsider their attitude to the ABM Treaty in 1972. Then we prepared a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, tried to tighten to support the resolution, other countries. We managed to do it. The resolution adopted by a majority vote, but failed to save the contract.
I wish to emphasize that we have to attack anyone not want and do not intend to. All that we desire — to develop the usual predictable business partnerships with everyone — be they members of NATO or other countries. And we pronounced it correctly. We are not going very sverhizbytochno or increase its armed forces, or "hang" over someone. Some countries, our neighbors are afraid that our tanks out there somewhere will be included.
— Estonian Defense Minister Mart Laar, for example …
— It's kind of nonsense, in my opinion. And everyone forgets how much we brought our heaviest vehicles from the sa
me area of the northern flank — tanks, infantry fighting vehicles … and no one in the West attention to it is not sent. As we say, took in the pocket to put themselves and for all that they say: not much, not enough, not enough … Leave everything on, it is better — the Urals.
We have always maintained that we are ready to cooperate with the United States, the countries of NATO on missile defense. But we wish to find, what are the basis of this cooperation. We must work together to find against any threats will fight together. Another example that I cite. Here you come to the site and some are going to build a house. We need to realize what it will house what foundation for him to lay what the weather here, what climate, how the house should be — wood or stone. At first everything you need to find out, and later to build the house. And we are now NATO members are asked to begin construction of the house, without providing for yourself what he needed foundation, what the weather in these parts, which will be winter here. In this the main problem.
We said: you have Russian, there will be no concerns if you will cooperate with us. The method of transparency, we will eliminate all your doubts. And we say, let's sit down and figure out what are the dangers of what threats we build a missile defense system. To date, provided that such danger is real, we did not come out. We are talking about the possible dangers. Americans — and that they assured NATO officials — that there is a threat of a missile attack, and in the future, perhaps, with the introduction of nuclear weapons. When all this is Iran and North Korea. Well, let's say. I will not use the word "Iran", will read on the south.
Appears the most common question that I ask for myself: what country X strike in Rome? Can anyone explain this to me?
— The more so if that country X sells half of its oil to Europe. What is it to make war with their most profitable customers?
— Yes. Realize when I ask this question in Brussels, all knowing smile, nod in agreement, and point the finger at the majestic neighbor from across the ocean. Say, this is he who insisted that the decision was made. But even though you do not understand what you are dangers, we say to them, build your system, increase their safety. But not at the expense of our security.
Imagine for a moment that the rocket flies from the south. It will fly over the territory of the Russian Federation. For us, anyway, what a rocket, we'll knock it. Stupidly think that we will not respond to it.
— What specifically will we miss her, so she flew to Europe. What if she will fall down on our land?
— Yes, it's kind of absurd. We have to react. But if this is so, if the West understand that we — sensible people, then the question: what coverage you own missile defense system to distribute terrain Russian Federation?
Now is the defense that is created can be more accurately able to respond to the Russian Federation ICBMs. No one has such missiles, which she can catch on 3rd and 4th phases of the South American plan on missile defense. And if so, if the threat to the U.S. — Russian Federation, then, sorry, what kind of partnership we talking about? Then it turns out that we are sitting in the offices of the Ministry of Defense, have to think how to do so, so that ordinary people could look relaxed in the evening telly and nothing do not worry. That's it.
We have suggested — it did Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev — let's distribute among themselves sectors in Europe, and we will respond at their own, to lead the interaction with you. Americans they say: you have to make a cooperative center, to conduct joint exercises — we are ready. But all we want is to get a guarantee that the future of the U.S. missile defense system will not be used to the detriment of the interests of the Russian Federation. But the question you have, Russian, what guarantee would like to receive?
We say, while difficult, is not a secret that between NATO and Russia there is a certain lack of confidence or lack of confidence tribute.
— It is at the subcortical level.
— It's not even that. We all know what happened to Yugoslavia. We know how the expansion of NATO, when they say there that the threat comes from the south. I answer to NATO "friends": if the threat from the south, then to my house you always approach? What a strange statement from some countries that border us that they feel the threat from the Russian Federation? What is it all the same for the fighters that loitering on the contact strip of the Russian Federation and NATO?
— In the Baltic region.
— What is terrorism? Against which terrorism is a fight here?
— A South American nuclear bombs in Europe?
— This is a separate issue. Special topic of conversation. These bombs must be removed from Europe. But back to the defense. We want to offer: put these safeguards on paper. And not only the paper. We do not want to be dependent on whether or another U.S. president. Here is Barack Obama, who is good to us, and who have developed good relations with our President Dmitry Medvedev. But tomorrow comes another South American president, and all can share. And we wish that this was the law, that these safeguards exist regardless of who will be later in the palace on the Champs-Elysees or in a white house. We wish it were a legally binding agreement. That's it.
We want to know what, if it is, we agree with you on possible threats against intermediate-and lower-range, the means, the characteristics of the missile defense system should be such that they reflect exactly this potential danger. This means that your anti-missile missile should not overtake the Russian ICBM that it must have speed limit. This means that the deployment of missile defense bases should not be close to the Russian ICBM bases. If you believe that the threat from the south, then place them in the wrong direction. But they do not.
Another important point — not a NATO missile defense system. I always emphasize this: you need to read honest. There is a South American sector of the European missile defense system. There is nothing else. Who would that be somewhere there any linked the — all bluff. Abilities that of NATO is not. When certain industrial structure in Europe they say and push their governments to cooperate with the U.S. on missile defense, hoping that they will get anti-missile technology, it is also misleading. As the South American laws do not allow, and should not share such sensitive technologies with partners. Including in Western Europe. Because the question of what Europe is the South American sector of the European missile defense, in my opinion, not fully thought out. I'm not sure that the leaders of the Western European countries is one hundred percent have calculated how this defense can affect the European and global stability.
We say that after the Contract on START, over which we had to work hard, we have something to do with the Yankees in Geneva led to a list of questions that need to be addressed in the recent times. It is clear that in those criteria, we decided to only part of the problem. No one says that we have solved all prepyadstviya security and stability. And after we have completed an indication Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama, we realized that the field is tremendous problems, the first of which is the problem of missile defense. Second, for example, in the non-nuclear strategic offensive arms, precision instrument. Follow-up — the fate of weapons in outer space, there will be a tool or not. And so on. These are the prepyadstviya that we want to discuss and who want to solve.
The problem is the main problem of missile defense, as hitch connection between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapon weapon remained the most pressing until the last days of signing a new contract START. This relations
hip is recorded in the preamble of the contract. It is a pity, that now the Americans are trying to pull back from that awareness. But sorry, this awareness has been signed by our presidents, and the contract was ratified, including the Senate. And it's amazing when negotiating on different platforms shall be removed from the Americans that regard. And for us it is a fundamentally. If you look at the contract, it says that we recognize "the link between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, grows the importance of this connection in the process of reducing strategic nuclear weapons …" In other words, as the reduction of nuclear weapons, this relationship becomes even stronger .
— The people in the street, as we journalists say there is questionIf such difficulties in our relations with the U.S. and NATO, if we do not want to hear, do not respond to our concerns, why we kind of agree with this, we continue to work with them on other issues? For example, in Afghanistan, helping them to transport their goods, and people. Why we do not put forward any ultimatums to them: We will continue to cooperate on Afghanistan, if you do this and that?
— We believe that today all the difficulties of strategic stability are interrelated. And, obviously, possible solutions are obtained at different speeds. Now, for example, on the track coming out of Afghanistan in our cooperation. On all the other direction is not moving so fast. For example, we have conducted negotiations with the Yankees on the agreement on defense technology. They are conducted fairly long time, and the success was not so noticeable as, say, on the track of Afghanistan. ABM, as you can see, as long as it does not work. The question, as you put it: whether it all together into a single "package": as long as, they say, you will not solve the issue with me on missile defense, we will not be with you in anything to lead the interaction.
I think this is incorrect. Life is richer, though obviously we take into account all incidents. We take into consideration relevant to our proposals. I believe that there are areas of cooperation in which we all going pretty well, and they need to develop. I think that this positive which develops and collects and which will be able to ultimately influence, convince the Yankees and NATO troops in the need to listen to the Russian proposals.
Will there be more conscious of the ABM, I'll say I can not, I do not know. But convinced that the conversation should continue. We are thinking how to get out of this situation.
No one ever puts the question like how you put it: pure white or dark. We say that even the "sectoral" approach, which offered Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, is just one of the options, it does not "cast in metal." We are ready to open a discussion and other offers. If NATO is counter-ideas, we are ready to listen to them. In the meantime, we are told only one thing: you anything terrible, let's work together. You will see the transparency, and then you will understand that our defense, "harmless."
So we read as in the days of Bush when the Americans were going to place missile interceptors in Poland GBI. Allegedly, there are only 10 missiles will be. What is your undermine strategic stability? Of course, no desire to use harsh words, but it is unreasonable to think that we are afraid of something there. This is a first. Second, it's not the 10 interceptors, but the fact that for the first time after the war, cool, despite assurances by all and sundry that the era of confrontation is over, we are now partners, close to the Russian border there is the strategic potential of the military organization , which can be used against Russia. Moreover, now — that's 10 interceptors tomorrow — 100, and the day after tomorrow — 1000.
We have been asked many times in the negotiations: how much you need for missiles? Well, two. Well, we say, let there be three, but let's fix it on paper. They are: No, we do not want. This means — a thousand? Let's write a thousand, I start to laugh. No, they do not want it. This means that they claim to what is not critical and under certain conditions the potential of this missile will be able to hook in strategic nuclear deterrence forces of. Then we have no choice, we have to take retaliatory military-technical measures. I would not like.
As said Dmitry Anatolyevich, there is the ability to agree. Here you are at the very beginning we talk about Chicago. And who said that we are going to Chicago to come to an agreement?
— Rasmussen had read about the summit of the NATO-Russia Council, where possible, they say, to start cooperation on missile defense.
— An assessment of the summit has not yet been resolved. We still have a look, we need this? What is there to fly? For show? Just to show that everything is fine, they say, do not worry. Americans, by the way, on many fronts wish to show that the process itself — it is excellent. And we're talking about what should be the result. No result comes out it is the "good".
— There is still one question that is being debated in our newspaper — is the problem with the performance of the Contract START. Passed the first inspection, and we came the publication where the creator criticizes our approach to their implementation.
— Yes, I know.
— Our creator believes that we do make some concessions Yankees. Unjustified, from his point of view.
— I assure you that in the contract there are no concessions to the Yankees, and know the real experts at this.
The treaty laid the mechanism, the conditions for its implementation. On this day, nothing came of it, so to say that one of the parties violates these or other provisions. Passed the first inspection. In our part of the contract created sided Advisory Commission — DCC in the process of which there was an exchange of data in accordance with the provisions of this contract. They are available on the website of the Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department.
— The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
— Yes, yes.
— But this one does not write.
— Why write? You just need to take the Web, click the mouse, go to the website of Foreign Affairs and behold them there. There's nothing secret. If we are his "friends", the Americans transferred the data, why not own the public can not tell them?
I would not now argue, as some colleagues write that someone is fooling anyone. Any party shall bear its responsibilities and perfectly understands the full responsibility for the completeness of the data representation.