Russian security supremo interviewed on new military doctrine

BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union

Text of report by the website of pro-government Russian newspaper Izvestiya on 14 October

Interview with RF Security Council Secretary Nikolay Patrushev by Vladimir Mamontov: "Russia Is Changing and Its Military Doctrine Is Changing".

[Mamontov] Nikolay Platonovich, we have heard all sorts of predictions over this year of crisis, including from authoritative persons who have been invested with government powers in the economic sphere: about an "island of security", about decades of recession, about getting out of it, and about a "second wave". In your opinion, what is true in these?

[Patrushev] Diagnosing the crisis that came to us from the outside is truly a very difficult task. Of course, the development of the domestic economy slowed substantially in connection with the crisis, and significant efforts and resources to neutralize the negative processes are essential. At the same time, a significant domestic economic potential and a reserve of strength were created in Russia in preceding years, including in the financial sphere. With their use, a number of anti-crisis measures were taken by the country's leadership that are demonstrating their effectiveness.

The federal center is doing everything necessary today not only to minimize the consequences of the crisis, but also to create conditions for future growth. The Russian Security Council and its staff have a definite participation in this work. Note that according to the Constitution, the chairman of the Security Council is Russian President Dmitriy Anatolyevich Medvedev, and the chairman of the government, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, is one of the permanent members.

[Patrushev] [no question in vernacular -- translator's note] We have held conferences more than once with leading economists and with the managers of the largest banks and companies, during which the reasons and conditions causing the crisis were analyzed in detail, and possible scenarios for its development and solutions were proposed, which served as the basis for the above-mentioned anti-crisis measures.

The results of the work are already visible now: the situation in the economy and the social sphere has relatively stabilized, and the falling trend has been largely turned around. However, in no case can we relax.

First of all, it is necessary to apply maximum efforts to reduce the tension in the labor market, create new jobs, and meet the social guarantees stipulated by the state in the spheres of health care, housing, and in utilities and community services. I would like to repeat for Izvestiya's wide reader audience what I had said during recent conferences in the Ural and Siberian Federal Districts: the responsibility for solving the indicated social problems largely lies with the leaders of the regions.

[Mamontov] In May the President confirmed the National Security Strategy through 2020. What is being done now to implement it?

[Patrushev] I will mention the main principle defined by the Strategy: reliably ensuring the state's security is only possible through the country's stable socio-economic development. In concept, structure, and content, it is interconnected with the Concept for the Long-Term Socio-Economic Development of Russia through 2020.

On 5 October the Concept for Fighting Terrorism in the Russian Federation was approved by the Russian president, and work is going at full speed on the new federal law "On Security" and on the Military Doctrine. The basis for a state policy in the fields of supercomputers and grid technologies as well as priority directions in the fight against the proliferation of narcotics were also reviewed this year during Security Council sessions.

The implementation of the Strategy is foreseen in the Comprehensive Plan under development, which details the essential measures and specifies the times for their accomplishment.

When working out managerial decisions, we consider both the general, world situation and the particulars of our country's specific regions. This is served by formats of work such as onsite conferences under the leadership of the Russian president. Three of them have taken place in the last several months: in Dagestan, in Stavropol, and in Kaliningrad Oblast. In particular, measures were discussed this summer in Makhachkala on eliminating threats to national security in the Southern Federal District.

For this very purpose, conferences are held in the federal districts at the direction of the head of state by the Security Council secretary. Issues of ensuring national security with consideration given to the particulars of specific regions as well as the plan for implementing the Strategy are discussed at them with the participation of the President's polpreds [plenipotentiary representatives] and the leaders of the federation member-states. Six such onsite sessions have been conducted this year already, and a seventh is planned for the end of October in the Northwestern Federal District.

[Mamontov] Speaking about drawing up a new edition of the Military Doctrine, you reported last week that the possibility of Russia delivering a preemptive nuclear strike was included in it. What caused this?

[Patrushev] The Military Doctrine in force now is a transitional-period document for the end of the 20th century. The results of an analysis of the military-strategic situation in the world and the prospects for its development through 2020 indicate a shift of stress away from large-scale military conflicts to local wars and armed conflicts.

Nevertheless, earlier existing military dangers and threats to our country have not lost their urgency. Thus, work to accept new members in NATO has not ceased, the bloc has stepped up its military activity, and exercises by the strategic forces of the United States with a study of issues of controlling the use of strategic nuclear weapons are being intensively conducted.

Additional destabilizing factors are being maintained such as a trend toward the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological technologies, the production of weapons of mass destruction, a growing level of international terrorism, and a worsening struggle for fuel-energy and other raw-material resources. Domestic military dangers have not been thoroughly eliminated, to which the situation in the North Caucasus testifies.

Thus, objective conditions have arisen for refining the Military Doctrine, which should offer a flexible and timely reaction to current and future changes in the military-political and military-strategic situation for the middle term.

It is proposed to divide military conflicts into large-scale, regional, and local wars as well as armed conflicts (both between states and internal).

It specifies that Russia considers preventing and deterring any military conflicts from starting as its most important goal. Along with this the basic approaches to accomplishing these goals are formulated. At the same time, it is emphasized that Russia considers the use of its Armed Forces and other troops to repel aggression against it or its allies and to maintain (or restore) peace by a decision of the UN Security Council and other collective-security organizations to be legal.

In regard to the points on the possible use of nuclear weapons, then this section of the Military Doctrine is formed in the spirit of preserving the Russian Federation's status as a nuclear power capable of realizing nuclear deterrence of potential enemies from unleashing aggression against Russia and its allies. This is our country's most important priority for the foreseeable future.

Also amended are the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons when repelling aggression involving the use of conventional weapons not only in a large-scale, but in a regional or even local war.

In addition, variability is foreseen in the possible use of nuclear weapons depending on the conditions of the situation and intentions of the probable enemy. The delivery of a preemptive (preventative) nuclear strike on the aggressor is not ruled out in situations critical to national security.

In addition, we can say that the draft document touches on problems of military-economic support, for which the improvement of the military-industrial complex is defined as a priority direction. The full-capacity functioning of OPK [defense-industrial complex] enterprises and organizations will not only permit achieving defense goals, but will also have a significant social function that will permit raising the standard of living of the population, and most of all in the Russian regions.

The draft has been discussed during onsite sessions of the Security Council secretary in the federal districts. Very businesslike proposals have come in from the leaders of the regions, and we are seriously analyzing them. I believe that a new edition of the Military Doctrine will be ready for submission to the country's president by the end of the year.

[Mamontov] A significant place in the National Security Strategy has been given to equal-rights strategic partnership; that is, in fact about a multi-polar world order. Is this really taking form or is the idea akin to the dream about the "bright future"?

[Patrushev] The financial-economic crisis has clearly shown the imperfection of the existing world order. It has manifested itself in the structure of the international financial system, in international trade, and in the price-forming mechanism for raw materials and energy resources. All systems and mechanisms have been regulated to serve the interests of the notorious "golden billion".

Every country faces a choice: accept the way of life and moral values of Western civilization in hope of someday becoming a part of it, even if, in the words of Brzezinski, as a "junior partner", or preserve one's individuality and try to change the existing world order for the better.

We believe that the idea of forming a polycentric international system is urgent like never before. As Russian President Dmitriy Anatolyevich Medvedev said: "The world cannot be controlled from one capital, and those who refuse to understand this will only create new problems for themselves and for others."

However, defending the idea of multipolarity is not "friendship against", not confrontation with the Western world as a whole or with an individual Western country. It is aimed at building a better, more just world.

As far as its reality is concerned, then look, what has become the central space for the development of a world economic policy? The Group of 20 that not only unites the industrially-developed, but also the developing countries and states with a transition-type economy. In fact, this format is gradually replacing the Big 8, which historically developed as a Western center of power.

The dollar, which is the cornerstone of the world's financial system, is gradually surrendering its position. The idea of replacing it as a world reserve currency for a "basket" of several currencies and the special accounting units used in the IMF, etc, is gaining increasingly more popularity. Is this really not a movement toward multipolarity in one of the most important spheres of the world's structure -- finance and economics?

Indeed, the crisis is only one side of the multifaceted problems and threats that must be solved and against which must be fought. Moreover, jointly, since not one state, even the United States, is in a position to deal with them independently.

Another piece of evidence that the process of departing from a mono-polar world structure has been started is the creation and development of new influential international organizations. The latest summit of the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] and the first full-format BRIK [Brazil, Russia, India, China] summit took place in mid-June in Yekaterinburg, and these have already become serious centers of gravity for the multi-polar world that is taking form. In particular, the last summit of the "20" in St Petersburg adopted a decision on a fairer distribution of quotas in world financial institutions at BRIK's insistence.

Another example: The Latin American countries conduct a pragmatic multi-vector foreign policy and are diversifying economic relations. We are interested in the development of multi-format cooperation with these states -- which has been discussed more than once in the Security Council's operational conferences. In particular, we accepted with satisfaction an invitation to our country to participate in the soon upcoming ALBA [Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America] summit (the organizational formulation of the so-called Bolivar initiative movement, which includes Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Ecuador, and others -- Izvestiya).

[Mamontov] The nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is an international-security priority. How do you assess the situation over Iran's nuclear program in this connection?

[Patrushev] The topic of Iran's missile-nuclear program is extremely politicized. In the West one increasingly often hears statements that "the patience of the international community" on this issue has reached the "limit". It is emphasized that if Iran does not take steps to meet IAEA and "6" demands next week, then it will be necessary to impose new, severe sanctions. Moreover, such attitudes have been preserved since the October meeting between representatives of the "6" and Iran in Geneva.

One would not have wanted the development of the situation to follow this path; it is essential to solve the problem in a constructive key. At the same time, Iran's policy often has an adventuristic character. Thus, information on the secret construction of a new uranium-enrichment plant near the city of Kum added an enormous fly to the ointment, which goes counter to the UNSC's repeated demands to Tehran that the enrichment work be stopped.

However, this problem should not be made worse. Statements of readiness by the Iranians to give access to the named facility to IAEA inspectors in the near future could possibly help remove existing concerns. The results of the meeting in Geneva give us the possibility of looking at the situation with careful optimism. The main thing is that the agreements achieved be carried out.

Therefore, it is now necessary not to weaken efforts to create conditions which would permit going to negotiations based on the "package proposal" of the "6" on cooperation and on promoting the formula "a freeze for a freeze", which proposes that Iran not start any new forms of nuclear activity and the "6" will not take new steps on a sanction track. It is essential to encourage Tehran's attitude toward a rejection of secrecy and confrontation in favor of transparency and cooperation with the international community in its nuclear program. And also to continue negotiations, adding strict compliance to IAEA regulations and strengthening IAEA guarantees and inspection mechanisms. We support Iran's right to the peaceful atom, but are categorically against further expansion of the "nuclear club".

[Mamontov] Will not the Americans, citing the Iranian factor, return to the recently-reviewed idea of deploying elements of a third missile-defense echelon in Europe?

[Patrushev] The missile defense issue was and continues to be one of the most important problems in the context of ensuring our national security. Proceeding from the inseparable connection between strategic offensive and defensive weapons, we welcome any steps aimed at reducing missile-nuclear threats. Therefore, Russia's president has characterized Barack Obama's decision to refrain from deploying missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic as a constructive step in the right direction.

However, one needs to consider that the Americans have not rejected the deployment of a global missile defense system. Here we are only talking about a correction to the plans and about a shift in the schedule for its creation with the use of new technical capabilities, and with the expansion of the circle of participants, this makes one extremely wary. In particular U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Vershbow is promoting the extravagant idea of the possible deployment of missile defense elements in Ukraine and says that "Moscow's euphoria is premature".

We expect a clear explanation from the American party on its intentions in the field of missile defense. This is essential to strengthen trust between our countries and to adopt adequate decisions in the fields of arms control and disarmament.

[Mamontov] How realistic are predictions that Israel is ready to apply a "force option" against Iran?

[Patrushev] I believe there is no alternative to a political-diplomatic settlement of the situation.

Actions of force against Iran would have the most negative consequences for international security by creating or worsening already-existing problems of a political, humanitarian, and ecological character.

For example, three times more ethnic Azerbaijanis live in Iran than directly in Azerbaijan. Should any scenario of force be carried out, they would undoubtedly set off for its territory, and a humanitarian catastrophe would be unavoidable.

Possible actions of force against Iran could have the directly opposite effect. They would, of course, solidify the Iranians, provoke dissatisfaction in the Arab world, and activate the Hamas and Hezbollah organizations under Tehran's control in Palestine. And this is fraught with worsening the situation in the Near East and Central Asia as whole.

Meanwhile, the situation is already difficult, considering the increased level of terrorist activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Mamontov] Are there any positive prospects at all for the development of the situation in Afghanistan?

[Patrushev] Unfortunately, they are still scant. Sabotage-terrorist acts are expanding and are acquiring a threatening scale, combat operations have not only encompassed Afghanistan's traditionally unstable south and east, but even the earlier relatively quiet north and west of the country.

In the estimates of the Americans themselves, over the last year the Taliban has achieved significant success, and a situation is possible in the near future in which "victory over the terrorists will be impossible". They are coming to the conclusion that an increase in the existing contingent by several tens of thousands of servicemen and the conducting of larger-scale operations are essential

In our opinion, this will only lead to further growth in the number of victims among the peaceful population. Already now according to international statistics, every third killed peaceful resident was killed by coalition troops, the majority of them during airstrikes.

It is important to solve two main problems on the way to stabilization. First, it is essential to increase the professionalism and effectiveness of operations of the international forces rather than their number and to solve the problems of outfitting and more actively involving the Afghan national armies and police in ensuring security. Right now in the efforts to form them, losses and desertions are replenished only with difficulty.

Our own experience of fighting terrorism in the North Caucasus shows that one should fight against the terrorists "not with numbers, but with skill" -- the wide use of operational methods and special forces and equipment. Troop operations should have a point character in order not to lead to deaths in the civilian population, which only facilitate an expansion of the recruitment base for replenishing the ranks of the terrorists.

Secondly, it is important to create the essential socio-economic conditions. First of all, give the Afghans stable, legal sources of income in place of their participation in large-scale narcotics production. Just the opposite situation is now being observed: since the beginning of U.S. and NATO operations in 2001, the production of opiates in Afghanistan has grown by many times. More than 90 percent of the world's opium is of Afghan origin.

Increased efforts to counter the further proliferation of narco-aggression are essential, and primarily under our initiatives to create a "belts of anti-narcotics security" around Afghanistan. The international operation "Channel", which enlists the capabilities of the SCO and is conducted under the aegis of the ODKB [Collective Security Treaty Organization] is a pillar of this work. An additional impulse to achieving the goal was given by a decision of the Special Conference on Afghanistan, which took place in Moscow on 27 March.

Today the results of the election for a new president in Afghanistan are being counted up. The development of the situation will depend on the combined support of the Afghan government through the efforts of the entire international community to create conditions for the construction of a future, peaceful life there.

Source: Izvestiya website, Moscow, in Russian 14 Oct 09