National Security of Russia

This monograph represents the third in a series of publications of the "Whither Russia?" project organized by the Strengthening Democratic Institutions Project, based at the Robert and Renee Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (BCSIA) at Harvard University''s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

The goal of the "Whither Russia?" project is to illuminate for the international community the ongoing debate in Russia about the country''s identity, security, and interests. Our central question is: what will emerge as the dominant conception of Russian identity, Russian security, and Russian greatness? More specifically, we hope this project can help clarify: competing images of Russia across the political spectrum; how these competing images are reflected in policy; the shape of the debate in specific arenas; the views of the political elite and the public about the debate; differences between views in the regions and those at the center; common threads in the competing images of Russia; and, based on the conclusions drawn, Russia''s fundamental geopolitical and national interests.

As part of the project, we are publishing important works by leading Russian policymakers and academics addressing a set of three broad questions:

1) Who are the Russians? Authors are examining competing ideas and components of the Russian nation, Russian nationalism, and Russian national identity.

2) What is the nature of the Russian state? Monographs are analyzing competing images of the state, Russia''s status as a "Great Power," Russia''s national interests, and conceptions of Russia''s friends and enemies. 3) What is Russia''s Mission? Analysts are exploring Russia''s relations with the outside world -- specifically with the Newly Independent States, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Asia and the West -- including its orientation toward action, its foreign policy objectives, and the preferred means toward achieving these goals.

We are fortunate in that the author of this monograph, General Valery Manilov is both a policymaker and an academic, a dual heritage evident in this paper. Currently First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Manilov served previously as Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. His essay represents one of the most interesting attempts by a leading Russian official to state Russian national interests explicitly, identify the array of threats facing Russia in the post Cold War period, and prescribe a set of policies to meet them.

Section I is self-consciously theoretical. It distinguishes between national values, national interests, and national goals, and then applies this framework to Russia''s contemporary situation. The author describes national values as "the fundamental moral and ethical norms that define each person''s position in life, their attitude toward the past, the present, and the future of their country, and their responsibility for its fate and for the preservation and augmentation of their national heritage." General Manilov identifies Russians'' fundamental values as: love for Russia, public unity, the family, individual freedom, democracy, equality of rights, selflessness in Russia''s defense, territorial integrity, collectivism, perseverance, conscientious labor, social justice, a multinational culture, and spirituality.

Manilov describes national interests as "the conscious, officially expressed objective interests of the individual, society, and the state." He identifies three categories of national interests. "Vital interests" include the strengthening of public unity, the securing of the integrity and inviolability of Russian territory, and the repulsion and cessation of aggression against Russia and its allies. "Important interests" include the attainment and defense of human rights and freedoms, the preservation of the significant components of Russia''s material and spiritual heritage, and the guaranteeing of international stability and security. Other "Interests" include the securing of favorable conditions for stable social-economic and spiritual progress, the preservation and defense of the environment, and the securing of civil peace and harmony, and the attainment of social justice.

Finally, the author identifies national goals as being "determined, formed, and attained in the course of the pursuit of national interests taking into account the domestic and international situation. National goals are the fundamental reference points of the activities of the state, society, and the citizen for the attainment and if necessary the defense of the national interests" of their country. He argues that at present Russia''s fundamental national goals include the guaranteeing of Russia''s sovereignty and integrity, the reform of the economy, and the country''s free and equal participation in the formation and functioning of regional and global markets.

Section II discusses threats, focusing on Russia''s military security, its political environment, the changing nature of global economic relations, and threatening global demographic and ecological trends. It highlights two conflicting developments that any national security strategy must manage: increasing economic integration combined with the growth of disruptive ethnic nationalism. The author then analyzes the threats facing Russia from a geographical perspective, ending with a discussion of Russia''s domestic difficulties.

In section III, Manilov outlines a strategy and policy for Russia''s national security. He describes a strategy of national security as "a long-term program of action for the attainment and defense of the national interests of Russia, coordinated according to the goals, tasks, conditions, location, time, means, and resources." He defines a policy of national security as "a complex of medium-term and current measures determined according to the concrete tasks of the strategy, and directed toward the achievement of the national goals of Russia." He then outlines a plan of action to promote Russia''s subregional, regional, and global interests, with special emphasis on Russia''s relations with the United States, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region.

Richard Weitz, a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the BCSIA, has translated, compiled, and edited this monograph from several of General Manilov''s Russian-language manuscripts on Russia''s national security. Funding for the "Whither Russia?" project has been provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

AUTHOR''S INTRODUCTION

We stand at the watershed between two eras: the era of "the Cold War" and the era of partnership. Today the world is located at a transitional stage from the habitual pattern of East-West confrontation to new international relationships, creating a huge opportunity for constructive cooperation and the settlement of conflicts by political means, dialogue, and compromise.

Although the term "partnership" appeared in the international political lexicon comparatively recently, it has acquired popularity in both the West and the East. Observers differ in their attitude toward and understanding of this political phenomenon, but experience has shown that it reflects the new, nonconfrontational, and democratic interstate relationships based on equality, trust, and cooperation that are coming to predominate. That is why the idea of partnership, and the psychology of partnership, has to a great extent permeated the field of security.
Despite the complexity of the domestic and foreign conditions and causes that accompany these processes, national interests are their basic driving force. The attainment and defense of these interests in turn comprises in essence the policy of security - national, collective, and universal.

A deep connection exists between national, regional, and global security. This connection is not always discernible, but its influence is indisputable. With the growth throughout the world of integrated commercial-economical and military-political tendencies, such influence is becoming ever stronger.

The threat of global nuclear war has significantly declined, thanks to the efforts of many states, above all Russia and the United States. The world has undoubtedly gained from this, but it has unfortunately not rid itself of military dangers. Less predictable regional conflicts have displaced the previously overarching but predictable global one. There has been a sharp growth in the number of crises, local wars, and armed conflicts. And Europe, which several years ago did not have a single armed conflict, now has quite a few.

Such is one of the indirect results of the destruction of the bipolar structure of the world. The road has been opened to centrifugal processes within regions, which have experienced acute, sometimes irreconcilable conflicts over the genuine national interests of nations and states. But at the same time these regions have been affected by strong integrating tendencies. Dealing with these conflicting processes is a main task of the strategy of partnership, whose goals are social progress, peace, and in the final account human progress. The European region, like the world community, finds itself facing a real danger of slipping into a global catastrophe thanks to a number of sources of tension: the wars in the former Yugoslavia, the Continent''s huge arsenal of weapons (including nuclear weapons), the instability in the newly independent states of Eastern and Central Europe, the hotbed of conflicts within the territory of the former USSR, unresolved territorial claims among states, and other difficulties.

A situation is present that threatens the real or potential interests of many states. There are many ways of solving this situation, but the selection of a path that satisfies both the national interests of states and the global interests of humanity is extremely difficult. Only a unification of efforts, a consolidation of the political wills of nations and states, could facilitate it. Such is the imperative of the time in which we live.

SECTION I

NATIONAL SECURITY AS A SYSTEM

Essential Definitions

National security is a complex multi-level system. It is made up of a series of subsystems. Each of them is unique, self-contained, and possesses its own structure and logic of development. Among the basic subsystems are the individual person, the social group, society, the state, and the nation. Several of them play a special role in the system of national security. For example, the individual constitutes a basic element of the remaining national security subsystems, and exerts a definite influence on them. The state, by virtue of its functions of government and national defense, acts as a connector between the domestic and foreign dimensions of national security. The nation, with its rich ethno-political spectrum, is the central object of national security as well as the bearer of national sovereignty, and the chief creator and guardian of national heritage and virtue.

The system of national security in turn is itself an element of higher order macrosystems: the regional and global interrelations of nations and states, and their relationship with the world environment.

Thus, national security constitutes a system of ties and relationships among the individual, the social group, society, the state, and the nation. By preventing and countering domestic and foreign threats, it secures their stable existence, the requirements of life, and their capacity for self-development and progress.

In the case of Russia, several factors play a decisive role in securing the effective functioning of the system of national security: on the one hand, an awareness of Russia''s material and spiritual potential, and of its national values, national interests, and national goals; on the other, the securing of them by normative-legal acts, the political and social-economic organization of society, public and cultural development, and practical politics.

National values, national interests, and national goals are the triad of the primary and basic driving forces of the system of national security. It is precisely these factors that determine the content, character, configuration, and direction of this system. In the hierarchy of the components of the triad, the main role belongs to national values. They take shape in the course of a historical process that is characterized by great stability and comprises the heart of the spiritual life of the multinational Russian nation. National values are the fundamental moral and ethical norms that define each person''s position in life, their attitude toward the past, the present, and the future of their country, and their responsibility for its fate and for the preservation and augmentation of their national heritage. In this regard national "heritage" [dostojanie] includes the entire aggregation of the territories belonging to Russia, its natural resources, and also its material and spiritual wealth, which was created by the labor of generations during the thousand-year history of our fatherland.

The national interests of Russia take as their starting point this national heritage. In comparison with national values, national interests are a more dynamic element that are formed under the influence of the long-term tendencies of social development. National interests are the conscious, officially expressed objective interests of the individual, society, and the state. Their consistent attainment and defense guarantees the stable existence and progressive development of Russia.

And, finally, the most agile element of the triad are national goals. They are determined, formed, and attained in the course of the pursuit of national interests, taking into account the domestic and international situation. National goals are the fundamental reference points of the actions that state, society, and the citizen take to attain and if necessary defend the national interests of Russia.

Clear, firm notions about each of the elements of the triad of basic sources and driving forces of the system of national security are especially important for the general condition, self-perception, and in the final account self-identification of the nation during difficult, crucial stages in its history. Russia is overcoming one such stage today.

Russia''s National Values

The awareness, preservation, and augmentation of our national values is of fundamental importance for the renaissance of Russia during the deep spiritual crisis that our society is experiencing. The systematic crisis that seized the USSR was above all a crisis of values: the loss of common goals, and the growth of pessimism, bitterness, and other negative feelings among the population. Today, a dramatic process of reappraisal of many seemingly-inviolable values is occurring. A kind of spiritual vacuum has emerged, in which the nation has become dangerously indifferent towards the absence of common public ideas, of clear notions and traditions that meet peoples'' deep feelings.

The concept of common human values was advanced in the second half of the 1980s by Soviet representatives as the antithesis to the values of proletarian internationalism (Marxism did not even recognize "values" as a philosophical category). In reality the concept represented an advancement in Russia''s ideological and political practice towards the views, ideas, and principles of Judeo-Christian civilization - above all, individualism, a striving for material success, and pragmatism in among other areas family relations. But Russia is an original civilization, possessing its own moral-ethical values because of its distinctive scale, content, qualities, and material and spiritual potential. And the single-minded efforts to displace Russia''s own values, even under the banner of "common human values," aroused domestic resistance and were in the final account rejected. We are not the West. While we preserve individual self-consciousness, the West''s exclusive emphasis on the individual is not characteristic of us. At the same time we are not the East. Although we also gravitate toward collectivism and unity, we are not ready to accept the complete self-alienation that is characteristic of eastern societies.

It seems that the common national idea, which meets the objective requirements of the renaissance and progressive development of Russia in the world community of peoples and states, finds itself between extreme positions. The system of national values of Russia has inimitable features and peculiarities connected with its thousand-year history and European disposition. We, like our ancestors, live on a vast territory, to a significant degree poorly suited to agriculture, with a harsh climate and few outlets to the open sea (and hence to marine commerce). Our border is unique in the extent to which so large a part of it is not defended by natural barriers. At the same time, the central location of the historic core of Russia, between Europe and Asia, and its vast network of rivers, fostered the territorial and state unity of our country. The trials, endured and overcome jointly by its inhabitants (including the three hundred year Tatar-Mongol yoke, which thrust on us numerous wars), formed and consolidated in the Russian character a self-consciousness and indissoluble combination of the qualities of the toiler and the warrior - perseverance, unpretentiousness, craftiness, hardiness in work, as well as courage, reliability, daring, resourcefulness, and bravery in battle.

In its process of historical development, Russia acquired (often through forceful annexations) the appearance of a unique cultural-ethnic formation, in which its Slavic, Turkish, Christian, Orthodox, and Muslim origins were synthesized. Its content was generally little affected by subsequent domestic and foreign influences, but especially deep processes - such as the October 1917 Revolution and the disintegration of the USSR - nevertheless could affect peoples'' lives.

Today a new connecting and unifying idea, a new system of Russian national values, must emerge that differs from the standard competing concepts of "Russianness" [russkost''] and "Great Powerness" [derzhavnost'']. These work against the consolidation of Russian society and complicate our relations with even other Slavic states such as Ukraine and Belorussia. They also easily flow into a policy of expansion and cannot be supported by the part of the population that does not identify itself as Russian.

The new system of Russian national values should be based on securing and assimilating the most significant common achievements of humanity and on preserving and developing peculiarly Russian traits and features. The first category includes the harmonic development of the individual; the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms; and the creation and consolidation of a law-abiding state, democracy, and civil society. The second category includes the preservation and strengthening of a unified state system and of the integrity and inviolability of the national territory; the development of the moral-psychological stability, maturity, hardiness, and optimism; and the affirmation of our devotion to cooperation and friendship with all countries.

In accordance with these principles, a list of the fundamental national values of Russia would include:

· love for the motherland
· public unity
· the family
· individual freedom
· democracy
· equality of rights
· selflessness in the defense of the fatherland
· territorial integrity
· collectivism
· perseverance
· conscientious labor
· social justice
· multinational culture
· spirituality
One may wonder why it is precisely these values that most concern the Russian nation. Every nation loves its motherland, but our nation, in view of its difficult historical fate, has had this special feeling from time immemorial. Love for one''s motherland includes diligence, heroism, long suffering, endurance, humility, devotion, selflessness - in a word, everything that over the course of centuries has been perceived as the inscrutable spirit of our nation, piously devoted to our fatherland and honoring it more than life itself.

For Russians, public unity is identical to sovereignty, independence, tranquillity, and peace. The multinational public unity that has arisen historically is a guarantee of the social-economic progress and spiritual flourishing of all the nations living on Russian territory.

Territorial integrity is of vital importance for our country, and is an all-Russian, all-national value. The gathering of Russian lands, the successful living together of many nations, their joint development, the overcoming of difficulties, misfortunes, deprivations, and the repulsing of aggression are goals for which many generations of our countrymen have devoted their lives. Russia''s fate, its prosperity, and the happiness of future generations of Russians is tied to the preservation and consolidation of this inheritance.

The role of the family is also distinctive in Russia. This unit of our society serves not only to continue the race and organize property relations, but also embodies moral obligations and the spiritual connection between generations, and is a powerful force of social development. Collectivism supplements this value, and also counteracts the individualism that recently has become so popular among the public. Responsiveness, kindness, a capacity for compassion, and a readiness to help one another are some of the distinctive features of the Russian character. In the same way perseverance has always played an important role in the often difficult history of our country. And in our time it retains its significance, comprising the basis of Russians'' hope for a better future and their faith in overcoming the unparalleled difficulties and deprivations associated with the deep transformation our nation is now experiencing.

We have always had incentives for conscientious labor, but these have been not so much material as moral. The same holds true for individual freedom, which in Russia is associated, one is obliged to say, first of all not with a thick wallet but with the professional and especially moral qualities of people, with their decency, spirituality, and integrity.

Democracy, a most important national value of our society, has deep sources in Russia''s thousand-year-old traditions and social life (in particular, in the Russian commune [obshchina] of the Novgorod period). Democracy entails a devotion to social justice, which does not permit one to perceive the state of affairs as favorable or happy if even a small part of one''s fellow countrymen are experiencing need, deprivation, and poverty. Equality of rights as a way of life arose and strengthened in Russia over the course of centuries. It is a very important value that has marked our country as a special civilization, in which all its peoples in practice are equal and possess the opportunity for self-development and self-expression. The value of our multinational culture has had the same historical significance. Within it has been synthesized during the hundreds of years of shared living, labor, and defense of our common fatherland all the best elements of the spiritual wealth of the more than 150 nations and nationalities of Russia. National separatism, chauvinism, national exclusiveness or isolationism, and a striving toward a mono-ethnic state structure are the antipathies of these values.

Selflessness in defense of the fatherland is a national value owing to the countless military experiences that have befallen Russia. Recall the distinctive features of the warriors Alexander Nevsky, Dimitri Donskoj, Peter I, and Alexander Suvorov, and the nation-wide heroism during the first and second world wars. At one time Prussian Emperor and military leader Frederick II, involuntarily and, one must assume, with admiration declared that one had to shoot a Russian soldier twice and then push him before he would finally fall. The loss of this value would be equivalent the loss of one of the essential bases of the defense capacity and greatness of Russia.

All the enumerated values, whether declared or not, are alive in the people. They are alive despite attempts to discredit or level them, and despite official disregard or silence about them. And they are all synthesized in the value of spirituality. It is precisely spirituality that has been, is, and, I am sure, will always be a pivotal element of the system of national values of Russia.

Russia''s National Interests

In practice it is difficult to determine the real degree of influence of these or other national values on the strategy and policy of national security. But they do acquire a definite form when one discusses "national interests."

National interests by no means constitute a mechanical summation of the interests of individual citizens. According to I. A. Il''ina''s definition, the state deals "exclusively with the general, all-national interest; for the partial and personal interest of the citizen can only be taken into account to the extent that it . . . can be perceived and interpreted as a general and all-national interest." I. A. Il''in, "O soprotivlenii zlu" (On the Resistance to Evil), Novyj mir, no. 10 (1991), p. 202.

The process of recognizing and substantiating Russian national interests is at present at the very first stage. The possibility and expediency of officially securing them in the normative-legal, political-diplomatic, and information spheres remains an open question. There have been rather widespread attempts to classify national interests according to their duration: "permanent," "long-term," "enduring," "temporary," "short-term," or "for a transitional or distinct period." Such an approach contradicts an essential characteristic of national interests - their permanency. It is precisely the stable character of national interests that makes them predictable, guarantees continuity in domestic and foreign policy, and assures for the mass of people their vitally necessary confidence in the future. In other words, the superstructure of society could change, but national interests should remain unchanging, fulfilling the role of a leitmotiv in determining the main directions of national life.

The division of national interests into "vital" and "secondary" also has entered into circulation comparatively recently. But the term "secondary" itself with respect to national interests sounds questionable, since it carries a derogatory undertone that is in principle unacceptable. Besides, precise and clear criteria for the identification of the importance of interests do not exist. As a result the discussion, as a rule, is reduced to simple and completely arbitrary declarations of such interests.

It seems the criteria that permit one to strictly rank national interests and establish their parameters must be defined, on the one hand, by a hierarchy of national interests, and on the other, by the content and character of the measures permitted for their defense. In accordance with this one can classify basic groups of national interests as "vital," "important," or simply "interests." To the first group belong interests whose devaluation and loss calls into question the identity or even the existence of the nation itself: sovereignty, the integrity of the state and its territory, and the systems of defense and security. The defense of these interests permits (but does not presume!) the application of adequate armed force when necessary - with the use of all the power and means available to the state.

The second group, "important" interests, is connected with the attainment of constitutional rights and personal and civil freedoms, the preservation of the significant components of the material and spiritual heritage of Russia, the guaranteeing of public security, support for international stability and security, and the prevention and cessation of organized crime and of social, racial, national, and religious conflicts. The limited (within the framework of the constitution, active legislation, and international legal obligations) application of force, including military force, is allowed for their defense, but only in those cases when socially significant threats on a nationwide scale emerge.

The third group, "interests," is associated with the securing of favorable conditions for the stable social-economic and spiritual progress of the country, of civil peace and harmony, and of the attainment of the principles of social justice. It also includes the formation of respect toward the memory of our ancestors and towards Russia''s national history, culture, and traditions. Finally, it is connected with securing recognition of Russia as a member with equal rights of the world community, with the preservation and defense of the environment, and with the establishment of a partnership with foreign states based on the principles of equal rights, mutually beneficial cooperation, and good neighborliness.

Of course, all the national interests are correlated with the national values of Russia and supplement and give concrete expression to one another in an interconnected and interdependent relationship. They are filled with vital content only in a unified system.

Here is a list of Russia''s national interests grouped according to the framework described above:

Vital Interests
· progressive development of Russia as a sovereign state
· strengthening of public unity
· securing of the integrity and inviolability of Russian territory
· creation and functioning of an effective system of defense and security
· repulsion and cessation of aggression against Russia and its allies
· prevention of war and armed conflicts
Important Interests
· attainment and defense of human rights and freedoms
· preservation of the significant components of Russia''s material and spiritual heritage
· guaranteeing of public security
· prevention and cessation of social, racial, national, and religious conflicts
· cessation of organized crime
· guaranteeing of international stability and security
Interests
· securing of favorable conditions for stable social-economic and spiritual progress
· securing of civil peace and harmony, and the attainment of the principles of social justice
· formation of respect Russia''s national history, culture, and traditions
· Russia''s attainment of a role, influence, and responsibility in the contemporary world
· preservation and defense of the environment
· establishment of an equal partnership, mutually beneficial cooperation, and good neighborliness with foreign states
It is necessary to consider the following when analyzing national interests. First, national interests are important only if they contribute to the securing of national values. One cannot equate national interests with final national goals. Such an approach, as a rule, is counterproductive and as a result does not help secure national values. Second, national interests, like national values, can conflict with one another. Third, the evaluation of national interests through the prism of threats and dangers has a subjective character and a sufficiently high level of indeterminacy, and cannot serve as the foundation for planning only on the basis of worst case scenarios. Given the impossibility of guaranteeing one''s equal security against all types of threats and dangers, it is expedient and necessary to define an acceptable level of insecurity.

A clear idea about a system of national interests, and an understanding of their internal hierarchy and interconnections, permits one to determine and classify the national goals of Russia.

Russia''s National Goals

The national goals of Russia are a type of landmark. They are the fundamental reference points of the strategy and politics of guaranteeing national security. Their vitality and productivity directly depends on their correspondence with national values and interests, whose attainment and defense they direct. The urgency of defining and classifying national goals is caused by the pivotal changes in the contemporary international and domestic political situation, the need to construct a democratic and legal state with a developed economy and social sphere, and the necessity of preserving and consolidating the position of Russia in the world and its role in the formation of a new system of international security based on a partnership of equal rights, mutually beneficial cooperation, and good neighborliness.

Strictly speaking, the issue is the national priorities of Russia. One naturally takes into account that they are inseparably interconnected and that their attainment is possible only with an overall, mutually coordinated approach. Thus, guaranteeing the sovereignty and state and territorial integrity of Russia directly depends on the coming into being of a united Russian federal democratic state and the effective carrying out of social-economic reform. To solve these tasks is impossible without the preservation and rational use of the natural resources of the country. The importance of this national priority increases with the imminent global resource crisis in which one can foresee attempts to turn Russia into a raw materials appendage of the West. A third national priority is organically linked with the first two: the reform of the economy with emphasis on the development of the social sphere. The transformation and the improvement of the economy, and a stable increase in people''s standard of living, provides the fundamental preconditions for the achievement of the next priority national goal: securing the most complete attainment of personal and civil rights and freedoms.

Attaining Russia''s vitally important national interests depends on our maintaining at a necessary and sufficient level the defense capacity of the country. The major components include preserving the fighting and mobilization readiness of the Armed Forces and their capacity for deterrence (including nuclear) of aggression against Russia and its allies; assisting with peacekeeping operations and the political settlement of armed conflicts; developing relations with allies and strengthening the system of collective security of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS); and establishing equal partnerships with states as the basis of a new system of international relations. Other Russian national priorities include securing its free and equal participation in regional and world markets, and in the joint solving of ecological, informational, and other regional and global problems.

Russia''s Fundamental National Goals
· guaranteeing Russia''s sovereignty, and state and territorial integrity
· preservation and rational use of natural resources
· reform of the economy, with priority given to the social sphere
· creation of social-economic and legal conditions for the most complete attainment of human rights and freedoms
· maintenance at a necessary and sufficient level of the defense capacity of the country, and the fighting and mobilization readiness of the Armed Forces
· deterrence (including nuclear) of aggression against the Russian Federation and its allies
· assistance to the political settlement of local wars and armed conflicts, and to peacekeeping activities
· development of relations with allies, and the strengthening of the CIS''s system of collective security
· establishment of a partnership based on equal rights with all states
· securing free and equal participation in the formation and functioning of regional and global markets
· solving jointly with other states and international organizations ecological, informational, and other regional and global problems

In sum, Russian national goals consist of securing our multinational country''s social progress, peace, and prosperity, and establishing a system of national security based on partnerships of equal rights and mutual advantage with all the states of the world community. Russia considers as a partner any state whose policies do not inflict damage on Russian national interests and do not conflict with the U.N. Charter. Of course, the unconditional priority of partnership in our strategy and policy of national security by no means excludes concern about maintaining essential readiness toward an adequate parrying of possible threats, the cessation of aggression, and of any impingement on our national interests. This is all the more true as the carrying out of the national goals of Russia in the contemporary stage of social-political development requires overcoming considerable conflicts - both those inherited from the past and those that have emerged afresh. Under certain circumstances these conflicts engender threats to the national security of Russia.

SECTION II

THREATS TO RUSSIA''S NATIONAL SECURITY

Types of Threats

The classification of the sources of the existing and potential threats to Russia''s national security requires systemic analysis, which excludes any kind of ideological or domestic political considerations. A single point of view is appropriate and acceptable here - the point of view of Russia''s national values, interests, and goals. From this point of view, the sources of threats to our national security according to an objective indicator of their true existence or according to a scientifically-based prediction of their possible emergence could be classified in the following way:

· territorial claims
· infringements against public unity or territorial integrity
· local wars and armed conflicts, above all those near Russia''s borders
· proliferation of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction, and also the possibility of their use
· a qualitative and quantitative increase in the armed forces and weaponry of other countries, and the expansion of military blocs and alliances to the detriment of the national interests and security of Russia
· infringements against Russia''s economic interests
· encroachments against the national heritage, including its natural resources
· infliction of damage to the ecological, informational, technological, and other vital components of national life
· interference in the domestic affairs of Russia
· discrimination against the citizens of the Russian Federation in foreign countries
· national-extremism, armed separatism, and militant fundamentalism
· international terrorism
The prevention and parrying of threats to Russia''s national security is being carried out along two interconnected directions. The first is associated with guaranteeing a necessary and sufficient level of the state''s economic, scientific-technological, defense, and spiritual potential; the second with increasing the effectiveness of international mechanisms supporting stability and peace.

How one defines these threats has essential importance in the selection of adequate measures and the determination of the forces and means necessary for the prevention and parrying of threats. A risk involves the existence or possible emergence of a situation in which the preconditions of opposition to the attainment of our national goals and interests, or to guarantees to our national security, could arise. A challenge entails opposition in the form of official and unofficial political-diplomatic actions, commercial or economic expansion, etc., to the fulfillment of the goals and interests, or to the solution of tasks, that guarantee our national security. A danger involves the infliction, or possibility of an infliction, of damage to our national interests and national security, but on a limited (local) scale. A threat entails an immediate danger of the infliction of damage that exceeds the limits of a local conflict and that affects our chief national values (our sovereignty, state system, and territorial integrity).

The identification in practice of any phenomenon falling under the categories of "risk," "challenge," "danger," or "threat" permits one to give a quantitative and qualitative description of the national interests and goals from the standpoint of their attainment and defense, and to guarantee and implement an effective strategy and policy of Russian national security.

The Source of Threats

In the field of securing Russia''s military security, an important variable is the country''s geopolitical position. Despite some similarities with the former USSR''s geopolitical position, the situation has radically changed because of the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) and the USSR itself, and the formation of newly independent states on the territory of the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe. Russia lies at the junction of Europe and Asia, preserves an outlet to three oceans, and has common borders with the Christian, Muslim, and Confucian civilizations. It is located between two of the three most economically developed regions of the world (Western Europe and Japan). To its south lies the most energy rich region of the world (the Near and Middle East) and its most heavily populated country (China). Russia is also surrounded by states possessing nuclear missiles. Its other important geopolitical features include a large and ethnically diverse population, significant raw material (especially energy) resources, and a limited territory for effective agricultural production.

The country still retains an enormous territory, but its size has shrunk to a set of borders reminiscent of that of Russia in the seventeenth century. The most significant reduction has occurred in Russia''s European parts, with the country''s western borders now 500-800 kilometers further east. As a result Russia now finds itself separated from Western Europe not only by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, but also by a second "belt" consisting of the Baltic republics and the countries of Belorussia, Ukraine, and Moldovia. On the one hand, this development has significantly reduced the acuteness of the military threat from the west and south, but on the other hand Russia''s naval and ground communication traversed these lost territories, and Russia''s early warning system for antimissile and air defense, and most of its most battle-ready ground forces, had been deployed there. Russia''s access to the Baltic and Black Sea, and to its naval bases there, has also sharply diminished.

On the political plane, the new content, character, level, and geographic direction of these threats is associated with fundamental changes in the disposition of forces on the international arena. The new world order that is currently taking shape is characterized by a sharp reduction in the role of ideology and a rise in the importance of culture and ethnicity. With the end of the Cold War, the most important groups of states are no longer the three ideological blocs but a number of distinct world civilizations: the United States, Europe, Japan, China, Russia, India, and the Islamic states. A most important development, of course, is the collapse of the stable bipolar world order that had dominated international politics, and the flourishing of disruptive regional and ethnic conflicts described earlier. But these disintegrative political forces run counter to the integrative tendencies dominating the world economy.

In the global economy, the United States is gradually losing its dominant position because of the rise of the European Community and Japan. As a result, the American public and government have become increasing preoccupied with the country''s domestic problems. In its relationship with Russia, the United States will in the short-term favor a policy of helping the Russian economy by encouraging private American investment, and in the long-term will aim at contributing to a stable situation there. The United States would only change its policy if, as a result of a significant rapprochement between Russia and Japan, China, or the European Union, its leaders perceived the creation of a dominating force in Eurasia that threatened the United States'' national interests.

Europe''s position is being determined by its integrating tendencies, which are helping to transform Western Europe into a independent force in the world, and by the collapse of the states of Eastern Europe, which are now gravitating towards this new force. The resulting decline of the importance in the North Atlantic alliance, and Europe''s increased economic conflicts with the United States and Japan, are creating the preconditions for an independent European military-political structure.

In Japan processes are actively at work that could complete the transformation of the Japanese''s understanding of their role in the world and, consequently, change their foreign policy goals and their national security policies. Japan''s contemporary military-political policies are based on its alliance with the United States, the ideological basis of which (opposition to communism) disappeared with the end of the Cold War. By the beginning of the 1990s, Japan had become the largest industrial power of the world. Should the Japanese come to believe that they could guarantee their national security by their own efforts, Japan''s relationship with Russia might become similar to that of a united Europe.

The end result of these economic processes, and their accompanying political developments, might be a change in the foreign policy goals and national security policies of the world''s great powers. Already Russia and the United States are paying increased attention to the domestic aspects of their policies, whereas Western Europe and Japan are focusing more on their foreign policies.

From a long-term perspective, demographic factors may exert a great influence on the disposition of forces in the world. An analysis of the basic tendencies of the development of the demographic situation shows that in 20-30 years the world could become completely different. The overwhelming part of the earth''s population (four fifths) will be concentrated on the territory of countries that were recently called developing. The significant increase in the proportion of the population living in developing countries, combined with their poor economic prospects and their increased military potential (resulting from their countries'' increased share of the world''s gross national product), will generate destabilizing conditions and threats to national, regional, and global security. Already, the threats ensuing from this situation are increasing owing to the attempts of certain states, which consider themselves members of the elite "club of wealthy civilized countries," to provide for their well-being at the expense of the rest of the world. The strengthening in Europe, Asia, and Latin America of new centers of power, which are striving to secure for themselves regional or even global leadership, are countering these attempts. The diversity of their goals constantly generates new threats to national and global security because, as before, one of the leading forms of deciding conflicts and chief means of achieving political goals remains armed conflict and war.

The ecological situation in the world is largely characterized by negative tendencies for the national interests of the Russian Federation: the periodical emergence of wide-scale ecological catastrophes, the degradation of renewable natural resources, and the wide-spread use of ecologically harmful technologies in industry, agriculture, energy, and transport (manifested by the appearance in practically all regions of the world of smog and ozone "holes"). The negative consequences of ecological catastrophes in contiguous states might directly affect Russia''s interests.

The geographic sources of the threats to the national security of Russia lie in various spheres, and have a wide range of qualitative states - from probable and potential to realistic and direct - and exist practically on all azimuths.

With regards to the West, the interests of Russia objectively cannot coincide universally with the interests of other states, and above all with the United States. Washington''s effort to secure its leading position in the world objectively does not correspond to the reestablishment and strengthening of the political and military might of Russia, or the growth of its influence in the countries of the CIS, in Europe, and in the other regions of the world. Thus, one ought to take into account possible resistance to this process. The attempts to enlarge NATO by incorporating the states of Central and Eastern Europe, and also the Baltic states, and to bring its military infrastructure closer to the borders of Russia, directly contradict the national interests and security of Russia. A possible aggravation of the conflicts in Europe itself, above all between the supporters of the European and the Atlantic model of security, are also a source of threats. The probability of frictions and conflicts increases because of the persistence today of national-territorial claims. Both the open and the hidden discrimination against national minorities and the so-called "other language" population in a number of newly independent states also is potentially dangerous.

To Russia''s east, the main junction of conflicts lies in the China-USA-Japan-Russia relationship. These states are objectively partners in the constructive solution of the important political problems of the Asian-Pacific region. In particular, both Russia and China are interested in preventing the military-political domination of the Asian-Pacific region by any single great power, and also in not allowing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In addition, a number of conflicts - including between the continental and island parts of China, and between the northern and southern parts of the Korean peninsula - bear within themselves a potential danger. The prospect of a raw material and demographic crisis in the region, of an expansion in the scale of forced and voluntary illegal migration, and of an aggravation of territorial issues and economic conflicts are serious destabilizing factors.

To Russia''s south, the conflicts associated with the cultural-historical and social-economic development of the countries of South Asia and the Near and Middle East are the greatest sources of threat. The situation in this region to a significant extent is determined by attempts to strengthen the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, and disseminate its ideas not only in the region but also outside it. A zone of confrontation between a number of states is being formed largely to the south of the borders of the former USSR. Their assertive efforts to improve their position, especially on the basis of militant nationalism and separatism, strengthens the probability of crises and conflicts capable of destabilizing the regional and global situation.

On the territory of the former USSR, the striving for national self-assertion still retains inertia. This has entailed the morbid demarcation and redistribution of former Soviet property, and discrimination against Russian-language speakers (which threatens to provoke their mass migration to the Russian Federation). This divisive situation has encouraged outside countries to attempt to carve out spheres of influence within the Commonwealth.

The geopolitical situation in Central Asia is characterized by efforts by Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, and other Muslim states to strengthen their positions. These efforts are focused not only at restoring ethnic, cultural, and religious ties and contacts, but also at stimulating regional economic integration at Russia''s expense. However, a number of objective factors exist that facilitate the countering of threats to Russia''s national interests in Central Asia. Turkey lies quite a distance away from the core of the region, and objective barriers limit Iran''s influence as well.

The struggle for leadership between Armenia and Azerbaijan threatens Russia''s national interests in the Caucasus. In this regard Armenia relies on the financial might of its overseas diaspora, while Azerbaijan has placed its bets on Iran and Turkey, which are both striving to gain a predominant position in the region. The situation is complicated by the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh and the activities of national extremists in Chechnya and elsewhere in the Caucasus. There is a high probability of the appearance of new hotbeds of armed conflict in contiguous states. According to the estimates of many experts, within the boundaries of the former USSR there exist 79 zones of possible conflict.

The CIS is not yet an effective international factor either on the global or the regional level. The planned coordinating organs have been slow to form, as has a true system of collective security. The problem of defending the Commonwealth''s borders is being solved largely on the basis of bilateral agreements, and peacekeeping operations within its borders have been carried out as a rule by Russian forces. In essence the CIS is at present an interstate alliance created for the solving of concrete, essentially short-term tasks. But a movement towards integration, interaction, and the formation of a indissoluble community of nations on a new democratic basis is gradually gaining force. This is especially true given that existing geopolitical reality dictates the necessity for the attainment and defense of their national interests of tight links and a unity of forces among the states of the Commonwealth in the fields of the economy, culture, defense, and security.

Within Russia itself, it is necessary to overcome the negative inheritance of the past, the inertia of totalitarianism and the administrative-command system. We must improve the functioning of the government and put an end to such negative phenomena as bureaucratism, corruption, and the politicization of administration. A significant gap between democratic principles and state practices exists, as do conflicts between the central state authorities and local elites striving at a minimum for economic autonomy and at a maximum for the creation of an independent state (something not permitted by the Constitution or the Treaty of Federation). Criminal gangs, political extremists, and foreign intelligence services have exploited the favorable environment in Russia to expand their activities. Demographic trends in the country - the falling birth rate, the aging of the population, and the decline in residents'' life expectancies - are disastrous.

Russia''s dreadful ecological inheritance from the USSR, especially the legacy of the production of nuclear weapons on its territory, has resulted in almost a third of its territory (upon which almost a quarter of its population resides) being considered dangerous for human health. A number of internal ecological factors threaten Russia''s security: the exhaustion of its natural resources (including energy, drinking water, and vital minerals); the degradation of renewable natural resources; ecological disasters threatening peoples'' life expectancies and standards of living; and the growth of pollution resulting from the rapid transition to a free market without adequate environmental regulations. Other ecological threats exist, but they require international cooperation to overcome them.

Russia''s continued poor economic performance - particularly the rise in unemployment, the fall in peoples'' standard of living, and the increasingly sharp differences in income - also threatens to increase social tensions within the country. According to the opinion of a number of prominent economists, under current conditions Russia must concern itself with the following dimensions of economic security: the consistent execution of economic reform, guaranteeing its food and energy supplies, and regularizing its foreign currency and credit situation.

National economic security can be guaranteed only on the basis of stable economic growth. If this goal is attained, then there will be a real possibility to solve our social problems and survive the competitive struggle in the world market. International experience demonstrates that governments, by adhering to the principles of market economics and developing a social market economy, know how to solve their key economic and social problems in a comparatively short time period and to proceed on the path of dynamic economic growth and effective international cooperation. The attainment of these goals naturally strengthens their economic security. The state must:

· reject primitive forms of state patronage for private business
· encourage entrepreneurship
· stimulate foreign investment
· struggle against corruption
· stabilize the institutions of power
· promote competition
· implement a tough program of macroeconomic stability aimed at curbing inflation and budget deficits
· regulate the national finances
· supervise the education of elite state employees responsible for national economic policy
· maintain an economy open to the world market
· effectively use foreign economic resources and assistance as a locomotive to develop the economy (including its economic potential)
Finally, practice shows that the following domestic sources of military threats could require the use of armed force to counter them:

· the activity of nationalists, separatists, and other groups directed at the violation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation or its disruption
· attempts at the violent overthrow of the constitutional order and the disruption of the functioning of the government
· attacks against nuclear energy, chemical, or biological production installations or other potentially hazardous installations
· creation of illegal armed formations
· attacks aimed at seizing weapons or military technology from armories, weapons warehouses, and enterprises that produce weapons
· illegal dissemination on the territory of the Russian Federation of narcotics or weapons, ammunition, explosives, and other means of carrying out acts of subversion or terrorism

SECTION III

RUSSIA''S STRATEGY AND POLICY OF NATIONAL SECURITY

A Framework for Analysis

The strategy of national security constitutes a long-term program of action for the attainment and defense of the national interests of Russia, coordinated according to the goals, tasks, conditions, location, time, means, and resources. The policy of national security is composed of medium-term and current measures determined according to the concrete tasks of the strategy, and directed toward the achievement of the national goals of Russia.

In principle, it is important that at the current stage of Russia''s development, its strategy and policy of national security allocate priority to the attainment of its national interests, and not to their defense. The preoccupation with defending against threats, which had been dominant for a long time, presumed an important if not exclusive role for forceful means in guaranteeing our national security. Moreover, this approach encouraged a preoccupation with maintaining a symmetrical development of military potential between the superpowers, with special emphasis on the global numerical balance of forces and resources. Such a reactive strategy and policy of national security caused us to assume a position of waiting, and narrowed our possibility for maneuver when preventing and parrying threats.

One could take the principle of good-neighborliness as a fundamental principle of the strategy and policy of national security, and the creation around Russia of a distinctive "belt of good-neighborliness" as the chief task. One can envisage this belt as one of a series of concentric circles, with Russia itself as the core. The first circle would include only Russia''s subregional interests; the next would also contain Russia''s regional interests; the last would encompass Russia''s global interests as well.

Of course, the proposal of any scheme is rather theoretical. In particular, our priorities, which are concentrated within the territory of Russia itself, are not reflected in such a framework. These domestic priorities comprise the core of our entire system of national interests. It is precisely here where the driving forces of the entire system of national interests arise and develop. In addition, national interests do not necessarily fall within the limits of this or that circle. It permits one not only to comprehend the multicolored palette of a state''s interrelationships with the surrounding world, but also to organize and regulate these interrelationships. Moreover, it gives a certain methodological basis for the determining and explaining the basis of national security priorities.

Subregional interests comprehend the zone of the newly independent states that have taken shape on the territory of the former USSR. From the point of view of the place and role of these states in the system of social-economic, military-political, cultural, ethnic, and historical relations of Russia, this layer of the belt has a special priority for our country''s national interests. The majority of states within this radius are connected with Russia by age-old historical and spiritual bonds, deep geopolitical integration, tight economic and cultural ties, a common infrastructure, alliance relations, and multilateral and bilateral treaties. Along with this, however, many problems exist. These problems have emerged, in particular, as a result of the collapse of the WTO and the USSR, the disintegration of their economies, the disruption of mutual cooperation, the sharp weakening of their global positions, and the frequent direct discrimination against the Russian-speaking population and national minorities. Serious problems also are connected with the guaranteeing of border security and with the status of Russian military infrastructure located abroad. Solving them has principle importance for Russia, its interests, and its security. And this must be taken into account, and be considered a starting point, by all states and international organizations.

Regional interests include the zone of the European, Near Eastern, Middle Eastern, Central Asian, Far Eastern and, Asian-Pacific regions. Russia''s commercial, economic, military-technological, scientific, cultural, diplomatic and other ties with the states of this "radius" of good neighborliness are developing predominantly on a bilateral basis. The common interest of the states located here obviously consists in their utmost development and the strengthening of their entire complex of ties on the basis of a partnership of mutual advantage and equal rights.

Global interests embrace the geopolitical expanse of the entire planet and include as a system both the mutual relationships of Russia with states geographically distant from it and the entire spectrum of its interaction with the world community in the solving of problems of a global character, including: the nonproliferation, reduction, and elimination of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction; the prevention, localization, and cessation of war and armed conflicts; the prevention and overcoming of ecological, genetic, and natural disasters; the protection of the environment; and the struggle against international crime, terrorism, and the narcotics trade.

Here we should discuss the concept of a "superpower." Historically the term has been associated with the possession of nuclear weapons, unlimited economic potential, and claims that it represents a model of future social organization for all humanity. Today in place of one of the superpowers, the USSR, fifteen independent states exist. Of course, Russia as a state possessing nuclear weapons and all the other necessary parameters - geostrategic, demographic, resource, defense, scientific and technical - could aspire to the role of a superpower. However, it would not be easy. Having suffered for more than seventy years from the absence of democracy, Russia consciously and voluntarily renounces any claim to serve as a role model of social development for all humanity. And attempts by certain forces to accuse Russia of harboring "neoimperial" ambitions are invidious nonsense.

Advancing Russia''s Interests

Like any other state, Russia has a range of instruments it can use to attain its national interests. Their specific content (political, economic, military, military-technical, scientific, cultural, ethnic, religious, etc.) depends on the hierarchy of national interests, correlated in accordance with the real political and economic weight, spiritual potential, geostrategic position, direction and character of international activity, and other parameters of states.

A new system of international relations has come into being that affirms the priority of political, diplomatic, and other non-military means of solving confrontations and conflicts. Nevertheless, one can hardly consider military might to have already lost its significance in the support of stability and peace. It remains an important instrument in securing and defending the national interests of states and in regulating international relationships. Humanity today lives under conditions of a relatively stable balance between the forces of argument (political-diplomatic, economic, etc.) and the arguments of force (above all military). The strategy of partnership can and should strengthen this balance.

If one talks about Russia''s national interests, then the basic direction of their attainment are Russia''s relations with individual states, groups of states, and regional and global organizations. The question is naturally about the entire aggregate of our relations in each direction: Russia-USA, Russia-NATO, Russia-China, Russia-India, Russia and the Asian-Pacific region, etc.

The parameters of the Russia-United States relationship are determined (or, rather, should be determined) by the formula of a strategic partnership of equal rights. This formula presumes the attainment of principles already established in particular in the START I and START II Treaties, the Moscow declaration of the presidents of Russia and the United States, and in other agreements. In any case, these documents confirm the stability of the new tendencies towards partnership in the development of Russian-American relations, which are based on the recognition and mutual taking into account of the national interests of each other. The deepening of this tendency is not only possible, but also necessary, insofar as a strategic partnership beneficial to both countries in economic, political, and military relations objectively contributes to the strengthening both of their national and of global security. In view of their economic, political, and military weights, and their geostrategic situations, the success of the transition of the entire international community from the former, confrontational order towards a new world of partnership depends to a significant extent on Russia and the United States.

With respect to the Russia-NATO axis, the development of a relationship with the North Atlantic alliance in the context of a deepening of the Helsinski process, and progress toward an all-European, non-bloc system of security, objectively meets the national interests of Russia. The transformation of NATO (in terms of its existing framework and composition) from a military-political and defensive organization into a political-military one capable of becoming a component of an all-European security system is a necessary prerequisite for the imparting of dynamism and success to this process. Of course the Russia-NATO axis involves the bilateral military-political relationships of Russia with the individual member states of the North Atlantic alliance - the United States, the FRG, France, Great Britain, and the others. In this sense the Russia-NATO sector, speaking technically, is multi-channel.

The relationship between Russia and the Asian-Pacific region is also multi-channeled. This region lacks a clearly defined bloc system. The presence in it of the United States, China, Japan, Russia, India, and other great power preordains the diversity of their interconnections, especially as they are developing against a background of a whole series of complicated interstate problems, including the southern Kiriles, the nonnuclear status of the Korean peninsula, Taiwan, border disputes, and the islands in the South Chinese Sea. In this connection the pressing tasks are the creation in the region of a crisis prevention center and, in the future, a system of collective security that includes all the countries of the region.

In principle, the same approaches can be applied to Russia''s relations with other regions: the formation and transformation of these relationships on the new basis of democracy and good neighborliness regardless of their location or which state-partners of Russia are there. In this regard they all in one way or another are interconnected and interdependent, and function in a unified system as coordinates that make up our national values, national interests, and national goals.

Naturally, each state has its own distinctive structure of national interests and, accordingly, its own priorities and basic ways for their attainment. For the securing of general stability, security, and peace, it is important in principle that the interrelationship among states be determined not by the formula "domination-submission," which presumes the satisfaction of one''s own interests at the expense of others, but on the basis of coexistence, cooperation, mutual advantage, a partnership of equal rights, and good neighborliness.

Concluding Remarks

In the contemporary, extremely complicated stage of world development, the key to guaranteeing the stability and effectiveness of the system of national security consists in using political-diplomatic, economic, informational, and other nonmilitary means to damper confrontations and antagonistic interests, to find and exploit areas of agreement, and to develop, deepen and integrate mutual interests that coincide. In this lies the alpha and omega of the conception of national security of the new democratic Russia, and the strategy and policy based on it. The conception of national interests proceeds from a renunciation of hegemonic ambitions, of ideological blinders and conventions, of distrust, of suspicion, and of enmity. Instead, it emphasizes the linking bonds of equality, mutual advantage, respect, and cooperation. It represents good construction material for the new era into which humanity has entered - the era of partnership.