Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov discusses his country's relationship with NATO, the possibilities for cooperation in the deployment of missile defense in Europe, and the resistance that Russian officers are showing to the Kremlin's military reforms.
- Twenty years have passed since the end of the Cold War, but the issue of relations between Russia and NATO remains unresolved. Now there is a new hope because your president is about to attend the NATO summit in Lisbon. Is this a breakthrough?
- Yes, we hope that this meeting will give a new impetus to relations between Russia and NATO.
- What will the relationship look like now?
- There was a noticeable deterioration after the August events …
- … you mean the Russian-Georgian conflict in August 2008 …
- But now we have begun to communicate again: at the level of military headquarters, at the level of defense ministers, foreign ministers. And we again began to cooperate: in the fight against sea pirates, in the training of specialists, in military maneuvers.
- Is it true that Russia no longer considers NATO its adversary?
- I believe that in the near future we will consider them our partners.
“But Russia has recently significantly increased its defense spending and intends to nearly double spending on new weapons purchases. You have requested twenty trillion rubles, or 476 billion euros ($ 662 billion), to fund this endeavor. Where does Russia see the threat this time?
- The main danger is terrorism. We are also concerned about the transfer of technologies for the production of atomic, biological and chemical weapons. And, of course, the fact that NATO moved closer to our borders with its eastward expansion constituted a military threat to our country. As for weapons, in recent years no modern weapons have been purchased for the Russian army. Most of our weapons are outdated.
- US President Barack Obama has abandoned plans to deploy, together with Poland and the Czech Republic, antimissile defense systems in Europe designed to repel Iranian medium-range missiles. Now NATO's new missile shield will be built jointly and using shorter-range missiles. The accompanying radar systems will be able to cover the territory of Russia only up to the Ural Mountains. Does it give you confidence?
- Of course, we are pleased with the president's decision. We have already made a number of our own proposals. But the main thing for us is to determine what dangers really threaten Europe. We also want to ensure that Russia participates as an equal partner. This is the only way to create a missile defense system that will suit everyone. And this will also be discussed in Lisbon.
- How exactly do you see the structure of this system?
- Once again: we have to define exactly what the danger is before discussing technical issues. Specifically, now the parties see dangers and threats in very different things.
- Are you talking about Iran and its medium-range missiles?
- Our political assessments almost completely coincide. But we're talking about technical capabilities. We do not fully share the views of the West on the possibilities of Iran's nuclear project.
- For you, equality also means that a Russian officer and his NATO colleague will press the button together in the event of a missile approaching?
- We must exchange all the necessary information in order to find out whether the real situation matches the data received by our radars and observation stations in Europe and other parts of the world.
- The Americans have actually gone far enough in their plans. They mentioned four stages of installing SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles. They know roughly where they will install them, and also plan to deploy a radar system in Turkey. They are unlikely to wait until Russia catches up with them.
- If our fears are not taken into account, we will have to treat this as hostile actions towards the Russian Federation and react accordingly.
- That is, does this mean that you will return to the previous option with the deployment of modern Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region?
- President [Dmitry] Medvedev spoke about this two years ago, when the Americans wanted to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Thank God it didn't come to that. Now we have to look for a variant of the missile defense system that will suit everyone.
- There are many skeptics in Russia, including in the army, who reject rapprochement with NATO. Can you overcome their resistance?
- I am optimistic because there is political will. Many did not believe in the new strategic arms reduction treaty, but this year we were able to sign it.
- Former German Defense Minister Volker Rühe recently spoke on the pages of SPIEGEL in favor of Russia's admission to NATO. Can you imagine your country joining the ranks of an organization formed specifically to defend against an attack from Moscow?
- This is a premature idea, and I do not see any need for it, at least in the near future. We need to expand cooperation. That's enough for now. As we did with the transit of NATO military and civilian goods through our territory to Afghanistan.
- As for Afghanistan, it becomes clear that the West also failed to bring peace to this country and that it will have to leave without achieving anything, as happened with the Soviet Union. But will this jeopardize the stability of the situation in Central Asia, that is, in the immediate vicinity of Russia?
- I hope that the peacekeeping forces of the West will not leave without fulfilling their mission. We are closely following what is happening in Afghanistan and are sharing our impressions with the Americans. Of course, the withdrawal of troops will affect the situation in Central Asia, although at the moment we cannot say exactly how. That is why we want to help the West, in particular, by supplying helicopters, which is currently under negotiation. NATO wants to buy several dozen Mi-17s from us.
- The USSR defense ministers who failed in Afghanistan sat in this very office. Why will the West be able to succeed in this country?
- At some point, we admitted that we could not fulfill our tasks, and therefore withdrew our army from Afghanistan in 1989. When the NATO operation was just beginning, we warned that it would be very difficult and that the number of troops initially sent there would not be enough. The Soviet Union kept more than a hundred thousand people in the country, sufficiently trained and ready for battle, but still failed. The West must also understand that Afghanistan is not a purely military operation and take our experience into account.
- The coalition agreement between the ruling parties in Germany provides for the expulsion of the last remaining American nuclear warheads from German territory. NATO and Washington refuse to do so, citing the fact that Russia maintains many tactical nuclear warheads in the European part of its territory. Do you see the possibility of freeing Europe from nuclear weapons?
- It would be premature to think about this issue now.
- Can you tell us how many tactical nuclear warheads Russia has? According to the West, there are two thousand of them.
- They say a lot.
- Two years ago, one of your former deputies complained that the Russian army is at the level of the 1960s or 1970s. You have since advanced in modernizing your army. What are the foundations of your reforms?
- Any army must constantly adapt to the real situation and the emergence of new dangers. We believe that now the danger for Russia is minimal. Therefore, President Medvedev decided in 2016 to reduce the size of the armed forces to a million people.
- And once you had five million.
- The most important thing is that we have a serious imbalance, too many officers and too few warrant officers and ordinary soldiers. There was an officer for each soldier. In European countries, the officer corps accounts for nine to sixteen percent of the entire army. In addition, some units are not combat-ready, and in the event of a conflict, they must first be reinforced. Now we have changed that. The second task is the rearmament of the army. For this we need twenty billion rubles.
- When it comes to such huge sums - how are you going to cope with corruption in the army?
- I've always talked about this with US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Any army, at least American and Russian, suffers from two defects. The cost of weapons is constantly growing, and contract terms are always thwarted. Therefore, we have created internal control mechanisms. And next year a new department for the supply of weapons will start working. It will include experts whose responsibilities will include ensuring transparency in the procurement of weapons. No officers, no representatives from the arms industry.
- The Russian army has been considered corrupt for many years. The money allocated for the construction of housing was used for abuse, and during the Chechen war, weapons were sold to partisans. Is it even possible to reform such an army?
- Corruption is a problem at all levels of society. The armed forces are no exception. But we have already changed the environment to a great extent. We are trying to curb corruption in the army as much as possible.
- What exactly have you achieved?
- The army is a closed organization. As a result, some military personnel feel overly self-confident. On top of that, the central administration is bloated to the point of impossibility, so we have reduced it to five times. There were too many levels at which decisions were made, more than ten. Now there are only three left.
- Is this the root of the resistance to military reform?
- Of course. Who wants to lose their jobs? Over the next three years, we will reduce the size of the officer corps by one hundred and fifty thousand people. At the same time, we will make military service more attractive, in particular by raising salaries. Now the attractiveness of serving in the army has reached its lowest level.
- In other countries, in similar situations, the military often stage a putsch.
- It doesn't bother me. We do not take any rash steps.
- You have reduced the term of compulsory service from twenty-four to twelve months. Is Russia moving towards the professionalization of the army?
- This is our goal, but we cannot afford it yet.
- The German Defense Minister wants to abolish compulsory military service because he thinks it is too expensive. And you want to keep it, because, in your opinion, a professional army is too expensive. How does this fit together?
- Of course, an army based on compulsory service is cheaper than a professional army, especially when you consider the living and salaries for professional soldiers. But more importantly, compulsory military service allows us to prepare the population for emergencies.
- You are violating the Soviet tradition of using only domestic weapons and intend to purchase helicopter carriers in France. You have already purchased drones from Israel. Is Russia incapable of creating modern weapons?
- Russia can produce even the most complex weapons systems. But some things are easier, cheaper and faster to buy on the world market. Over the past twenty years, our industry has lagged behind the advanced countries in some areas. We buy helicopter carriers together with full documentation, which will allow us to build the same ones on Russian soil in the future.
- Can you imagine buying weapons in Germany? For example, submarines?
- We work with the German Ministry of Defense and industrialists. We are negotiating.
- What types of weapons are you looking at?
- All I can say is that we have problems with armored vehicles.
- In that case, perhaps you can tell us where you plan to use unmanned aircraft?
- In their armed forces.
- Could you clarify?
- We have purchased only a small amount - for training centers. We want to run tests to see how they can be applied. Mainly in the army and intelligence.
- Could it be that only a civilian can bring about the radical changes in the Russian army that are now taking place there?
- I can't do everything myself. We work in a team - the chief of the general staff and my deputies. Perhaps it is easier for me to do something, because I am not bound by certain traditions and agreements in force in the army. I see problems from the outside, and this makes it easier for me to ask questions, why can't I do it differently.
“But the general will not take civilians seriously.
“I can assure you that none of my generals look down on me.
- Thank you for the interview, Mr. Serdyukov.
