Russia to consider NATO proposals on new security mechanism in Europe - official
MOSCOW. May 17 (Interfax-AVN) - The NATO countries in general and the U.S. in particular are working on a possible concept of a future agreement that could come instead of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE Treaty), and this issue will be discussed at an international conference on European security in Moscow on May 23-24, Sergei Koshelev, the chief of the Russian Defense Ministry international military cooperation directorate, said in an interview with Interfax-AVN and Krasnaya Zvezda on Friday.
"We will be assessing our partners' proposals precisely from the viewpoint of how these new agreements can strengthen Russia's security but not weaken it in any way," he said.
"We do not have ideological contradictions now, as it used to be during the Cold War era, when military power was the only criterion to provide security. If you can defend yourself and have serious military arguments to boast, then you are a mature state. If not, then woe betide you," Koshelev said.
"What happened next? The security mechanisms in Europe that took shape in the 1980s-1990s have become outdated. No new mechanisms are seen today to replace the CFE Treaty," he said.
"Attempts to resuscitate the CFE haven't worked. Russia suspended its participation in this Treaty in 2007, and this in fact has led to paradoxical situations, in which a multilateral treaty has lost its relevance and viability only because one state has withdrawn from it," Koshelev said.
"What does this say about? The entire Treaty hinged on one single state. And if you remember that this Treaty provided for verification, mutual inspections, transparency, and confidence building measures that allowed for seeing the armed forces' condition, we saw the situation this way: this Treaty was needed mainly to control the Russian armed forces," he said.
"Our NATO partners have never had and do not have any interest in controlling each other," Koshelev said. "Therefore, would it be correct to say whether this was a viable Treaty? We, at the Defense Ministry, believe that, when the Treaty was conceived and drafted and at the original stage of its functioning, it was necessary and efficient and allowed for achieving certain goals. As the relations in Europe were developing, it lost its relevance. But it is a question whether we need something else," Koshelev said.
"We need some other document that would enable countries to be sure that nobody is preparing any sudden blows," he said.
"Do we need such a treaty in Europe for the future or not? This is exactly the question that we would like to discuss and listen to our partners to hear what they tell us and how they explain their vision of these problems to us," Koshelev said.
"The NATO countries and the U.S. are working on a possible concept of a future agreement that could come in place of the CFE Treaty," he said.
"We would like to think over and discuss together what it should be, what this Treaty is like, and how it should work in new conditions if we decide that we need such a Treaty," Koshelev said.
"What, in my view, is fundamentally important is that no treaty is needed in itself as a political agreement between parties. It makes sense only when, by concluding such a treaty, states really get some advantages and preferences in providing their security. This is always a compromise. This is always agreement to make some concessions and some sacrifices, but expecting that the conclusion of such a treaty would allow ensuring one's national security more efficiently. I think we will be assessing our partners' proposals precisely from the viewpoint of how these new agreements can strengthen Russia's security but not weaken it in any way," he said.