NATO Summit: Old debt with Russia not over

(Baonghean) - On the occasion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit taking place in the UK for 2 days (September 4 and 5), Nghe An Newspaper reporters had an interview with Major General Le Van Cuong, former Director of the Institute for Strategic and Scientific Studies of the Ministry of Public Security, to review the military intervention process and strategic adjustments of the largest military alliance on the planet.

US President Barack Obama arrives in Cardiff to attend the NATO Summit, considered the most important since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Photo: THX

Reporter:Dear Major General, can you summarize and outline the formation and development process of the North Atlantic Alliance?

Major General Le Van Cuong:The North Atlantic military alliance has existed for 65 years. The founding agreement was signed at a conference in Washington on April 4, 1949. The predecessor of this organization included 12 member countries: the United States, Great Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Portugal, Norway, and Iceland. Some other countries joined NATO later, such as Greece, Türkiye (August 18, 1952), the Federal Republic of Germany (May 5, 1955), and Spain (May 30, 1982). The largest military bloc on the planet was born with the purpose of fighting against the Soviet Union, the socialist system, and the national liberation movement. During its development, NATO has had the following notable changes in scale and strategy:

In terms of scale, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, the Warsaw Pact dissolved, NATO no longer had a political basis to exist. Not only did NATO not dissolve, it also went through two expansions in scale. The first lasted from 1991 to 1997. The second from 2002 to 2004. Through the two expansions, NATO admitted all Eastern European countries as members, bringing the security border closer to Russia, which meant that Russia's strategic security space was narrowed. This included an agreement not to admit more former Soviet countries and not to set up military bases in Eastern European countries that NATO had agreed with the Soviet Union when the Berlin Wall fell in 1991.

In terms of strategic direction, NATO has had two adjustments, linked to each period of prosperity and decline of this Alliance. Before 1999, NATO was in a state of confrontation with the Warsaw Pact, considering Russia as the primary target of struggle, that is, the target of traditional military security. The 90s can be considered the heyday of NATO, linked to the period when the US became a superpower. However, politically, NATO fell into a crisis of internal division. The Soviet Union collapsed, the common target of struggle no longer existed, European countries naturally demanded their own autonomy, less dependence on the US in military, political and economic terms. In 1999, NATO raised the issue of reshaping the organization's activities, starting to shift the focus from regional collective defense to global military and political activities. The second strategic adjustment was in 2010, during the 2-day Summit in Lisbon (November 19 and 20). This marked a clear turning point in NATO's strategy, officially shifting its focus from traditional military security to non-traditional security, namely anti-terrorism. As a stepping stone for this push, it is impossible not to mention the terrorist events targeting the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in the US. Not only did this event change the world political situation, it also created the reason and conditions for NATO to change its way of operating. This was also a short "honeymoon" period (2009 - 2010) between Russia and the US, most notably the famous political formality: US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton gave Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov a remote control that could restart from the beginning.

From 2010 to 2013, NATO continued to adhere to a strategy of focusing on counter-terrorism in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. However, the crisis in Ukraine may have opened a new phase.

Reporter:During NATO's military intervention abroad, what are some notable milestones, Major General?

Major General Le Van Cuong: In its 65-year history, NATO has had three major military interventions.

The first was the attack on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 10, 1999. Before that, Yugoslavia was an independent, sovereign state, a member of the United Nations, and did not threaten any other country. The United States and NATO launched a war of aggression against Yugoslavia, carrying out 35,000 bombing raids; mobilizing nearly 1,000 aircraft of all types; dropping 79,000 tons of bombs and ammunition on Yugoslavia, in particular, 37,400 tons of munitions banned by the United Nations Vienna Convention for use in war; launching 32,300 missiles at 990 targets; killing more than 2,500 people, including 88 children, and injuring more than 10,000. Almost all of Yugoslavia's economic infrastructure was destroyed, with estimated economic losses reaching $100 billion. After that, NATO established the state of Kosovo, to clarify: Kosovo was originally a province of Yugoslavia, never separated from this country. This military intervention by NATO completely violated the United Nations Charter. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter stipulates: In international relations, member states of the United Nations shall not threaten or use force to resolve disputes.

The second military intervention was against the Taliban in Afghanistan in October 2001, after the September 11 terrorist attacks. In March 2003, NATO attacked the Republic of Iraq, a powerful and sovereign country in the Middle East. The George Bush administration informed the Americans and the international community that President Saddam Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction and had close ties with the international terrorist organization al-Qaeda. This unjust war was strongly opposed by the Soviet Union, China, the international community, and even traditional US allies such as Germany and France. As a result, half a million Afghans and Iraqis died, more than 1 million were disabled for life, and 4 million people had to leave their homes to seek a living. On the US side, American scholars calculated the human loss to be nearly 6,000 US soldiers and the financial loss to be 1,500 billion dollars. More than 10 years after the Gulf War, these two countries are still in a state of chaos. Another product of the war in Iraq is the IS organization, or the Islamic State of Iraq. In 2005, two years after the US overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime, terrorist leader Bin Laden organized an al-Qaeda branch in Iraq, with the goal of suicide bombings targeting US soldiers and pro-US Iraqi soldiers. This was the predecessor of IS. This organization operated in Iraq from 2005 to 2010. When the war in Syria broke out, this organization switched to the opposition, the main force against President Bashar al-Assad. The US and the West supported this force in all aspects from 2011 to 2013. At the end of 2013, the situation in Syria changed, and Mr. Assad's government prevailed. In early 2014, this terrorist organization returned to Iraq, forming the so-called Islamic State of Iraq. This terrorist state, for the first time in history, surpassed al-Qaeda in terms of brutality. The second difference was its ambition to conquer Sunni Muslim areas in the Middle East. In short, this was NATO's longest, most complicated, bloodiest intervention and also its biggest failure.

The third military intervention took place in March 2011. In the face of the bloody conflict in Libya, the United Nations Security Council issued Resolution 1972, allowing the US and NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Libya, preventing the Gaddafi regime's planes from dropping bombs and missiles on protesters. Taking advantage of this, the US and NATO launched airstrikes, using missiles to destroy the entire socio-economic infrastructure, destroying the Republican Guard and finally killing Gaddafi.

All three NATO military interventions abroad violated international law and the United Nations Charter, revealing the nature of this military alliance.

Reporter:At this negotiating table, what issues will NATO discuss and what interventions and adjustments can be made, Major General?

Major General Le Van Cuong:If the Lisbon Conference determined that Russia is no longer the main traditional security target, after the Ukraine crisis, NATO will look at Russia with different eyes. For Washington and Brussels, Russia is back to being a traditional security target in the region, there has been a shift in perception. From a scientific perspective, I think this perception is subjective, Russia has no turning point but only does what is inevitable. But in the eyes of Washington and Brussels, these are new intentions from an old target. Once again, they see Russia as a direct threat to the territorial integrity of European countries, especially Central European, Eastern European and Baltic countries. Solutions on the negotiating table include: establishing a European rapid reaction team, establishing more military bases in Central European, Eastern European and Baltic countries, and stationing troops on a permanent rotational basis. In the immediate future, NATO has agreed to increase cooperation, engagement, and exercises, especially in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, to deter Russia and assure these countries that NATO has the full capacity to protect their sovereignty. Solving the problem related to Russia faces the following difficulties:

Firstly, in terms of perception, NATO countries do not always have the same views on Russia. Central European, Eastern European and Baltic countries maintain a tense and opposing attitude towards Russia. On the contrary, Western European countries, the pillars of the European Union such as Germany, Italy and France, have a different view. They agree that it is necessary to resolve, embargo and punish, but Russia is still basically a partner. Thus, the dominance of interests leads to the difficulty of unifying perceptions about Russia within Europe. As for NATO itself, on one side, the US plays a leading role and does not have too many economic ties with Russia, on the other side, European countries make up the majority of members in the Union and are closely tied to Russia in terms of economy and energy. Sober European scholars have said, and I think it is correct, "without Russia, there is no Europe". Especially a Europe in the current difficult context, the banking systems of Portugal and Bulgaria are on the verge of collapse; The specter of public debt is resurfacing in Greece, Italy, and Southern Europe. Now, striking hard against Russia will certainly have a direct impact on Europe.

Second, besides the Ukraine crisis emerging as a hot issue, this NATO Summit also has to face other new challenges such as: The rise of China in the Asia-Pacific region; terrorist threats in the Middle East; cyberwar. Thus, in addition to correcting the mistake of neglecting the traditional security opponent that has been "hibernating" for 10 years, NATO must continue the non-traditional security war and maintain the global scope of the Alliance. Still in the echoes of the great economic crisis in the US in 2008 and in the Eurozone in 2010, military funding was cut (the US had to cut 100 billion USD within 10 years), it is clear that NATO is facing many big challenges.

Reporter:Can the Major General make a forecast about Russia-NATO relations after this conference?

Major General Le Van Cuong:From a strategic perspective, I think of three scenarios: the first is that things will get better, the second is that things will get worse or continue to drag on, and the third is military conflict. Currently, all parties involved are on the brink of distrust and even hatred. This problem is due to the fact that Russia and NATO are still opposing perceptions. Russia believes that Washington and Brussels actively created the Ukraine crisis and dragged Russia into it to weaken it. On the contrary, Washington and Brussels believe that Russia is the troublemaker, violating international law and Ukrainian territory. From an outsider's perspective, Canadian scholars believe that the mistake lies largely with Washington and Brussels. The conflict in eastern Ukraine and Russia's annexation of Crimea are the consequences of an unconstitutional coup led by Washington and Brussels. Despite the contradictions, I would like to exclude the third scenario: The possibility of a conflict is very low, because neither Russia nor NATO is ready to jump into a war, unless there are miscalculations, one side pushes the other to the wall. But before the abyss of a destructive war, any power must be sober. The most likely scenario is the second: it will take a long time to restore Russia-NATO relations. But remember, they contradict each other but at the same time need each other. Without Russia, the US cannot solve the withdrawal from Afghanistan, the conflict in Syria, Iran's suspected nuclear program, and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Russia's role in these issues is extremely important, more than China's.

On the contrary, Russia also needs the US and Europe. With its technological level lagging behind the West, Russia certainly will not be able to cope and maintain economic independence in international integration. In the 10-15 year plan to revive the Russian economy, Mr. Putin has an open door policy to attract FDI from Europe and the US to improve its technological level. In the past 8 months, 70 billion dollars of FDI has withdrawn from Russia, which is clear evidence that Russia is affected by the rift in relations with the West. In addition to the economy, Russia also needs to cooperate with the West in the non-traditional security war, specifically to resolve autonomous regions in the country. If we put the contradictions and constraints between the two forces on the scale, the result is 50-50, so the Russia-NATO relationship in general and the Russia-US relationship in particular are predicted to enter a period of ups and downs, ice, but it is difficult to lead to a cold war, a hot war is completely impossible.

Reporter:Thank you, Major General, for this interview!

Thuc Anh(Perform)