LETTERS: Russia and NATO Sir, — Helle Bering’s article on NATO expansion (“The New, Bigger NATO: Fears v. Facts,” April/May 2001) is quite interesting in its critical analysis of opposition to NATO enlargement into the former Soviet sphere of influence. Unfortunately, the article seems to discount out of hand Russian objections to such expansion. It is important to note that, while it is no longer a world power, Russia is a key entity in European and Asian affairs, and should be treated with respect. Covering the largest land area of any nation in the world, and home to nearly 200 million people, more than any other European nation, Russia is a key player simply by virtue of its size, if not by its power. Its possession of thousands of nuclear warheads is also a prime reason for respecting Russia. There are a few countries in this world that suffer from, for lack of a better term, a persecution complex. After over a hundred years of being carved up by other military powers, China and other southeast Asian nations have it; after spending centuries as subjects of the Ottomans, and then Britain and France, the Arabs have it; and after being invaded from the west twice in the past century, and suffering in the vicinity of 40 million casualties between the two wars, Russia has it too. This fear of attack is one of the reasons Russia created the Warsaw Pact. The Warsaw Pact was a response to the acceptance of West Germany into NATO in 1955. With the West seemingly beginning a new invasion across Europe, this one political as well as military, the Russians responded by guaranteeing a large buffer zone between NATO and the Soviet Union. The creation of their own buffer zone made the Russians feel safer and more secure, knowing that if NATO were to attack, they would have to slog through hundreds of miles of communist defenses before reaching Moscow. Although World War II is long past (this year marks the sixtieth anniversary of U.S. entry into the war), the Russian persecution complex is no less diminished. Russia still fears invasion from the west, as shown by Vladimir Putin’s concerns about NATO expansion. This fear needs to be recognized and dealt with, not dismissed out of existence. Because Russia needs to be handled with care, NATO should not expand into the former Soviet Union as long as Russia itself is not offered membership, which it should not be at this time. Russia still needs its buffer zone; expansion by NATO into Ukraine, Belarus, or the Baltic states would put NATO borders within 300 miles of key Russian cities. Obviously, to the Russians this is unacceptable, as it would also move NATO air bases all the closer. Russia should be allowed its buffer zone, because its national psyche will not change to match the desires of the West. Their legitimate worries of encirclement can’t be dismissed out of hand, especially if Russia is expected to listen to the West on issues such as nuclear proliferation and the now defunct ABM treaty. It’s for that reason that Russia has to be listened to and given a wide berth, rather than approached from a position of strength as it is in a position of weakness.
Daniel E. Clinkman
The author replies, Mr. Clinkman’s concern for the feelings of the Russians is commendable, but in my view founded on faulty premises. The Soviets had as their goal the domination of all of Europe, not just a defensive buffer zone in the East Bloc countries. This was of a piece with the communist forward thrust that could be seen in other parts of the world — East Asia, Latin America, Africa — not just in Europe. As was discovered after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Warsaw Pact battle plans for the invasion of Western Europe were detailed in the extreme, all the way down to names, phone numbers, and addresses of the European leaders to be eliminated in the first hours of an invasion. Second, Russian public opinion polls reveal little interest in the actions of NATO, one way or another. Ordinary Russians have survival on their minds, or the accumulation of wealth if they are among the fortunate few. The Russian leadership, on the other hand, finds NATO a convenient whipping boy. There is a huge discrepancy here. And third, neither Belarus nor Ukraine has been mentioned as a prospective NATO member. The Baltic countries are a different matter. The United States has never accepted them as part of the Soviet Union. They ought to be free to choose their course.
Helle Bering |
QUICK LINKS: TOOLS: |
