Nato encroaching on Russia’s borders
Ambassador says his country feels it is being deceived by the alliance, writes Shannon Ebrahim
NATO is extending its reach and infrastructure ever closer to Russia’s borders, endangering the stability and security of the whole region. Even former Soviet head of state Mikhail Gorbachev, who comfortably lives in Germany and is revered in the West, warned earlier this year that there is a danger of world war if Nato continues to take aggressive measures against Russia.
Gorbachev had in mind Nato’s installation of force integration units into Eastern European countries along Russia’s periphery, right on Russia’s doorstep. These units are destined to be new forward staging units, which form part of Nato’s plans to establish a long-term presence in Eastern Europe, and a Nato rapid reaction force with the capability to move a brigade of 5 000 to a new location within 48 hours.
In defence of its new positioning of forces on Russia’s doorstep, Nato argues that its Eastern European allies such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary have requested a Nato presence, arguing there is a threat of Russian invasion.
With regards to Ukraine, Gorbachev has warned of a hot war which could inevitably turn into an atomic war.
The New York Times has revealed that the Obama administration is considering sending advanced weapons to Kiev.
This would be taken by Russia as a declaration of war, and even German Chancellor Angela Merkel has spoken out against any such move.
Regardless of the warnings, Nato continues its aggressive posturing. In February, the Nato defence ministers met in Brussels to consolidate their military alliance against Russia, even undertaking nuclear simulations on what they call the “threat scenario from Russia”.
Alexander Vershbow, the former US ambassador to Russia and current deputy secretary-general of Nato, referred to Russia’s involvement in Ukraine as a game changer in European security, and is advocating the necessity of extending Nato’s reach East, and even arming the Ukrainian military.
To garner Russia’s perspective on Nato’s posturing and the situation in Ukraine, Independent Media sat down with Russian ambassador to South Africa Mikhail Ivanovich Petrakov this week.
“The issue for Russia is the Nato military potential and infrastructure being brought closer to Russia’s borders. Russia also has the feeling of being deceived as there had been promises that Nato would not be enlarged,” he said.
Petrakov also points to the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Co-operation and Security between Nato and the Russian Federation of 1997. Under this Act, Nato and Russia would prevent any threatening build-up of conventional forces in agreed regions of Europe, and Nato would not station additional permanent substantial combat forces.
The fact that Nato is installing new forward staging units in Eastern European countries along Russia’s border is contrary to the agreement and spirit of the Founding Act of 1997.
Russia had proposed a Draft European Security Treaty in 2009 which provided for indivisible, equal security for all states of the Euro-Atlantic space from Vancouver to Vladivostok. “Russia’s Draft European Security Treaty did not get a positive response from the Western partners. Nato is interested in equal security only for Nato members,” Petrakov said.
In terms of Ukraine, Europe insisted on Ukraine having a European orientation.
When Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych decided to postpone the signing of an agreement with the EU in 2013, to make it more beneficial for Ukraine, waves of demonstrations in Kiev were supported by the West. This ultimately led to the coup. The US played a more central role in orchestrating the coup than many realise.
President Barack Obama has admitted that the US played power broker in Ukraine’s transition, and the top US state department diplomat for Europe, Victoria Nuland, made no effort to hide the pivotal role of the US in determining Ukraine’s political future.
In an amazing admission, Nuland said that since 1991, the US had poured $5 billion into “funding NGOs, political parties and the media” in Ukraine. When in Kiev, Nuland discussed on the phone with the US ambassador in Ukraine the installation of the new Ukrainian prime minister and the mayor of Kiev. It was on the same trip that she made a fairly symbolic gesture of handing out cookies to the riot police and anti-Yanukovych demonstrators in Ukraine. During the demonstrations, US Senator John McCain had also spent an evening with opposition leaders and addressed the protesters. These revelations of the blatant interference in Ukrainian politics led US Congressman Ron Paul to call on the US government to stop meddling in Ukraine’s affairs.
One cannot underestimate the emotional place Ukraine holds in Russian history. In the early Middle Ages, Russian Prince Oleg declared that Kiev was the “mother of Russian cities”, and since then it has become a popular saying.
Russia and Ukraine had been one entity for centuries. The re-unification of Russia and Ukraine took place in 1656, and Odessa, Donetsk and Lugansk are among the cities established by Russia. After 1917, the Bolsheviks transferred several Russian territories to eastern and south-eastern Ukraine in a political move that was hoped to strengthen the proletariat.
The Russian empire had conquered Crimea in the late 18th century. In 1956, former Soviet premier Nikita Kruschev – an ethnic Ukrainian – gave Crimea to Ukraine on the 300th anniversary of its re-unification with Russia. There was seemingly no risk in doing so at the time, as all these territories were part of the Soviet Union.
Crimea is important to Russia not only due to its tourist value or as a health resort, but strategically for its port at Sevastopol, where the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based. Crimea is 90 percent Russianspeaking, and 68 percent of its population of 2 million believe themselves to be Russian. Before March last year, Russia had 25 000 troops on the Crimean peninsula, alongside thousands of Ukrainian troops.
“When Nato naval ships would try to come to Crimea, the Russian population were hostile to them,” Petrakov said. “Our concern was that if our bases in Crimea were to go, then Nato would come to Crimea.” These fears were probably well founded given Nato’s strategic designs to encircle Russia.
After the coup in Kiev, Crimea had a referendum in March last year on the question of reunification with Russia. Out of the 83.1 percent of voters taking part, 96.7 percent voted in favour. There were Crimea-wide celebrations of these results. During the transition that followed, more Ukrainian soldiers and officers joined the Russian army and navy, than left.
This week, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev visited Crimea to show the importance that Russia attaches to Crimea, and promote Russian tourism to the area. While there, Putin charged that Ukraine was under “external state management”. This was a reference to the fact that some ministers in the Ukrainian government are foreigners who were hastily given citizenship necessary for the job.
Ukraine’s finance minister, Natalie Jaresko, was the former section chief at the US embassy in Kiev.
The minister of health and the deputy minister of the interior are both from Georgia, and an Economic Bloc minister is from Lithuania. The governor of Odessa City is the former president of Georgia who is wanted for corruption – the avidly pro-Nato Mikhail Saakashvili.
Given the military and political factors combined with an upsurge of nationalism and extremism in Ukraine deeply rooted in strong anti-Russian feelings, it is no wonder Russia is concerned. Shannon Ebrahim is Foreign Editor
of Independent Media