Among the most discussed events in the pastyears - the placement in the territory of Russia, or rather, under Ulyanovsk, the transport base of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As soon as its appearance was announced, the thesis began to arise in the society that NATO was going to deploy a full-fledged military presence in the Russian Federation. How much were these expectations legitimate?
Essence of the question
From what suddenly the Russian public decided,that opens the base of NATO in Ulyanovsk? In March 2012, a spokesman for the head of the Ulyanovsk region said that negotiations were held with the authorities of the region with representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance for placement in the area of the transit point for NATO, namely, at the airport in Ulyanovsk-Vostochny.
Later information appeared that the Ulyanovsk regionis interested in locating the appropriate infrastructure on its territory due to the use of transport capacities of local suppliers, as well as the prospects for the formation of new tax payments and the emergence of several thousand jobs. The governor of the region also stated that the project had been prepared for a long time, and it is beneficial for the region.
At the level of higher state institutionsthe authorities had an explanation, according to which Ulyanovsk was to be used as a transit point for the aircraft of the North Atlantic Alliance. It was assumed that transportation with the use of its infrastructure will be only certain types of cargo - in particular, tents, products, medicines. The destination destinations for transport were Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO military equipment was not subject to transportation through Ulyanovsk.
The reaction of society
This information has caused a wide publicresonance. The population of the region got a reason to think that a real NATO base in Ulyanovsk was being opened and started organizing protest actions. The theses criticizing the position of the Russian authorities began to spread actively in the media. Almost immediately followed the comments from the representatives of the Alliance. Thus, the head of the NATO Information Office, which operates in Moscow, has confirmed that NATO troops will not be able to stay in Ulyanovsk at all.
Legislative basis of cooperation
Interaction between the authorities of the Ulyanovsk regionand NATO had a legal basis. It was organized in accordance with the provisions of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation "On the Procedure for Ground Transit through the Territory of the Russian Federation of Military Equipment to Afghanistan" adopted on March 28, 2008. This source of law contains wording on which the relevant military transportations can go through Russia in a simplified manner. However, many representatives of expert circles continued to insist that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization still enjoys the loyalty of the Russian authorities, which is not based on current legislation.
What did the public fear, media representatives and Russian experts? First of all, the so-called "transit point" could easily be transformed into a full-fledged military base.
Could the item become a military base?
The main argument of the supporters of this pointview was the fact that an infrastructure facility with a similar status - a transit center owned by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Kyrgyzstan - the US military was offered to be renamed the commercial transit center. That is, as some representatives of the public found, having located on the territory of the Russian Federation formally not directly related to the armed forces, NATO could subsequently transform its status into a different one, less appropriate to Russia's national interests.
Another fear of the public was that NATO member countries began to show a suspiciously unhealthy interest in Russia.
Why did NATO want Ulyanovsk?
Representatives of expert circles paid attention toon the fact that NATO could well use the more economically profitable ways of transit of cargoes bypassing the Russian Federation. So, for example, it was assumed that the containers with the cargo must first be delivered to Ulyanovsk by airplanes, then reloaded to the railroad train, then forwarded to the Baltic coast, and then to the destinations. The NATO army, according to analysts, could well use alternative routes, which were much shorter.
For example, you could request transit throughthe closest allies of the Alliance in the Middle East or Europe. The location of NATO bases allowed, therefore, to let cargo through more economically viable routes. But for some reason the Alliance began to look for other options with transit security. NATO member countries decided for some reason to use the Russian territories, and this was not liked by many representatives of the public.
Experts fearing the beginning of the transit of NATO cargothrough the Russian Federation, also drew attention to the lack of tangible benefits for Russia in such cooperation, despite the assurances of politicians that this can contribute to the formation of jobs and increase tax revenues to the budget.
What is the benefit for Russia?
Representatives of the public began to doubt,way that the transit base of NATO under Ulyanovsk is capable of becoming a real factor in the positive development of business relations between the Russian Federation and the states of the Alliance, primarily the United States. Americans, according to experts, with a little bit of probability could show readiness to evaluate Russia's actions in a full-fledged partnership key. The experts did not find an obvious economic benefit for Russia in placing the transit facility of NATO under Ulyanovsk.
Similarly, members of the public did not see the prospects for constructive interaction between the Russian Federation and the Alliance in the military sphere.
Were there prospects for military cooperation?
Many analysts felt that the prospectscooperation in the military field, on the contrary, could have a negative impact on Russia's national security. According to experts, the transit base of NATO in Ulyanovsk would soon require maintenance and protection. Their implementation would involve either attracting a military alliance, or hiring Russian security structures. Experts also feared that the infrastructure for the organization of air traffic, present in Ulyanovsk, could be used for the transit of drugs from Afghanistan. Another reason for the suspicions of analysts was the following circumstance: if a fully-fledged NATO military base still exists at the site of the corresponding transit facility, it can be used as a place from where the Alliance's aircraft will be able to conduct combat sorties. And this is geopolitical risks. In turn, experts did not see any obvious preferences for the Russian Federation in the part of solving problems of national security.
Interests of the Russian Federation in providing transit
In one of the theses accompanying the prospectsRussia-NATO interaction in the project near Ulyanovsk, the idea was expressed that the Russian Federation should support transit, as it is interested that the NATO army should continue to be in Afghanistan and keep the situation with the spread of extremism under control.
But the activity of Americans, who were presentin this Middle Eastern state for several years already, gave rise to many experts to come to other conclusions concerning the effectiveness of the deployment of the Alliance army in this region. Thus, drug trafficking from Afghanistan has grown, as some analysts estimated, several dozen times. The level of terrorism has grown, and extremist networks have continued to operate.
Washington decided to strengthen its position
Estimates of the prospects for cooperation between NATO and Russia in thethe organization of transit through Ulyanovsk in Russian society were represented in the widest range. So, there was a point of view according to which the agreement in Ulyanovsk was interpreted as an attempt by Washington to strengthen its positions in the European region, to influence the Russian Federation in order to use its resources in the interests of the Alliance. The prices for the possible transit were satisfied with the USA - for example, the delivery of 1 kg of cargo to Afghanistan, according to some experts, should cost the budget of NATO $ 15.
Airlines that were considered ascontractors - above all, this "Volga-Dnepr", as analysts felt, would hardly refuse such offers. Thus, starting with a small - organization of a transit base, - Washington would try, experts say, expand the zone of influence of NATO in Russia, for example, by offering to buy from Russian suppliers some types of supply. What was to interest not only the airline.
The authorities' position
Many experts hastened to come to the conclusion thatRussian authorities - both at the level of a specific region, the Ulyanovsk region, and in Moscow - fully supported the project of cooperation with NATO. And this alarmed representatives of the general public. Many, for example, did not like the fact that the governor of the Ulyanovsk region was an expert at the Moscow School of Political Studies - Rodrik Braithwaite, who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK, was in charge of its board of trustees. At the level of federal authorities, the Russian-American project, in general, was also supported.
What will the partners say?
After the information on the agreement between the Russian Federation andNATO began to spread in the media, some representatives of the expert community felt that such a move could introduce a tangible imbalance in relations between the Russian Federation and its closest partners - in particular, the CSTO states. Particularly sensitive in this aspect could be the fact that in 2011 the leaders of the CSTO countries agreed to ban the deployment of military bases on their territory that belong to third countries. According to some analysts, the nearest allies of the Russian Federation could have unpleasant questions to the country's leadership concerning such an unusual precedent of interaction with the organization with which Russia often has tangible contradictions in the sphere of geopolitics.
Experts drew attention to the fact that there is an extremethere are few historical precedents that would indicate that NATO seeks to build partnership relations on an equal footing with Russia. Quite the opposite, in the recent history of diplomatic communications, there are demonstrative precedents that speak of the opposite. For example, it is known that in 1990 the NATO Secretary of State promised that the organization would not move to the East. But NATO bases on the world map, as is known, include several states of the former socialist camp. One of them, as analysts suggested, could soon appear in the territory of Russia.
Well, the nature of the doubts and fears of the experts was then quite understandable. But were NATO forces able to penetrate the territory of Russia in reality?
Theses and facts
The fears of the experts, which we mentioned above, do notwere justified. Moreover, the evaluation of such theses was subsequently not given the most positive. So, some members of the public were accused of almost anti-state position. Anyway, no military base of NATO in Ulyanovsk appeared, although the same transit point was still formed.
Regarding the thesis that for Russia there was nono benefit in placing the relevant object on its territory, there was a counterargument. Thus, according to one version, the Russian Federation could use the fact that the NATO transit point was located in its own interests, as a possible instrument for influencing the Alliance's position on certain political issues. That is, representatives of NATO, rather than their Russian partners, should have been afraid of the negative consequences. At the same time, some political interest in the Russian Federation in the organization of cargo transportation through Ulyanovsk was still: if Russia refused to cooperate, then the alliance would most likely turn to Georgia. This would mean strengthening the military presence of NATO in the region.
Concerning the thesis that NATO had moreprofitable alternatives to the organization of cargo transportation, there was also a counterargument. The fact is that one of the key spare routes - through Pakistan - could, due to a volatile geopolitical situation, close. Real alternatives could not be revealed to him in a reasonable time - even if the script was activated with the use of transit bases in Georgia.
Let's consider other significant conclusions of specialists,criticized the position of experts who feared the negative consequences of the presence of the transit point of NATO in the Ulyanovsk region. Thus, it is particularly emphasized that the goods that must go through Ulyanovsk are subject to mandatory inspection by Russian customs authorities. In this process, military specialists from NATO countries do not participate. The main feature that characterizes any NATO base in Europe or another region of the world is considerable sovereignty over the jurisdiction of the state hosting the military from the Alliance. That is, access to the NATO bases for the authorities of the country that allowed their construction, as a rule, is very limited. This criterion did not correspond to the transit base in Ulyanovsk. NATO could not prohibit monitoring the activities of the relevant facility to Russian authorities.
Activity of using the database
The transit base of the Alliance near Ulyanovsk wasis open. But in practice it was not even used. At least, the facts available to the general public that reflect its regular use are not available. According to some NATO analysts, in fact it turned out to be not very profitable to interact with partners from Russia. At the same time, assessments of this state of affairs are very different. NATO representatives are saying that it is expensive to transport cargo through the Russian Federation, and Russian military experts believe that the alliance countries still did not dare to put themselves in dependence on the infrastructure in Russia.
Summary
So, what conclusions can we draw on the basis ofaccessible information concerning the conclusion of a contract between NATO and the government of the Ulyanovsk region? To what extent did the realities correspond to the theses of some representatives of the public, who expressed concern about the precedent of cooperation between Russia and the Alliance under consideration?
First of all, we can note:it was not even supposed that NATO troops, namely soldiers, military equipment and related infrastructure, would be deployed in the Russian Federation. The object in the Ulyanovsk region absolutely did not correspond to the signs of a full military base - neither by the nature of the cargo transported, nor by legal criteria.
Russia could, in the long term,placing on its territory of the transit point of NATO political, and in some aspects - also economic benefits. However, the Alliance, having agreed on the potential use of appropriate resources in the Ulyanovsk region, practically did not use the infrastructure available in the Russian Federation.
No obvious threats to the national security of the Russian Federationthe location of the transit point of NATO in Ulyanovsk could not be brought, since all the goods transported were to be inspected by Russian customs officers. The presence of NATO military experts with the goal of realizing any powers that are inherent in ensuring the operation of a full-fledged base was not anticipated in Russia.
The Russian authorities, according to one version, playeda useful move from a geopolitical point of view: an agreement was concluded with NATO and all the necessary conditions for using the relevant infrastructure on the part of the Alliance were created. But the fact that NATO did not take advantage of the opportunities provided, according to some analysts, characterizes his actions as not too constructive. At least in the economic aspect, since it was too expensive to transport cargo through Ulyanovsk, this could have been calculated in advance.
