Highlight text to annotate itX
Press Conference of Nikolai Bordyuzha, part 2
Nikolai Bordyuzha, Secretary-General of the Collective Security Treaty Organization
We are now carrying out very interesting work with Armenia, in which we realize tasks connected to inter-state military-economic cooperation.
Within this framework we agreed to create in Armenia five or six joint enterprises to fix, repair, modernize and dispose of weapons.
I am very glad that these projects are close to realization.
This is first. Secondly, the negotiations today are not only with Armenia, but also with Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, with Belarus.
This military-economic cooperation is interesting for all the countries,
because this way we basically reanimate the military industrial complex in these states.
This cooperation is quite successful today.
You know that according to the Collective Security Treaty each state has priority when buying weapons.
I can say that in the last two years the number of orders within the framework of the treaty more than doubled.
I think this is a very positive dynamic.
The worst scenario for the organization would be if we would be charged with some gendarmerie
functions to bring order to any state.
This is not our issue. We focus mostly on the external challenges.
This is the purpose of our organization.
Another question is that after the events in Kyrgyzstan, the heads of state became concerned with the potential situation
that the state structures would not be able to ensure the security of the citizens, when the power institutions would be destroyed.
When a country is in chaos and there is no real power and the national resources cannot ensure the freedom and lives of the population,
should the Organization interfere to neutralize these scary processes, as it was discussed.
Nothing more. Everything else concerns the external challenges.
I believe that the creation of military objects and structures by third countries and their organization around,
first of all, Russia, is a negative tendency.
The elements of the anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe also belong to the negative tendency.
It means breaking parity and tensions. I think that today, after the world situation has changed
we need to find some mutually interesting solutions instead of developing some systems from one side and expanding NATO,
telling us afterwards that, guys, you know that it is not against you.
The same as they say about the anti-missile defense. It is not against you. Against who then?
Against the countries that do not have nuclear weapons? Why do they need advanced bases in Bulgaria and Romania?
Why did they need to restore the military structure in the Baltic countries? And other attempts?
We understand, we are adults, that it is not simply about coming and ploughing the field?
These millions and billions of dollars that are invested there. What for? For political purposes.
Then it makes sense. Otherwise, I am not convinced of their positive intentions.
We heard about it so many times, we agreed that NATO would not go eastward, and it went there,
how other countries were invited and pulled.
I think that this position is incorrect.
During the events in Kyrgyzstan alone, more than 100 of its citizens ended in these camps.
The latest events in Tajikistan showed that among those who are trained in these camps
are numerous citizens of the member-states of the Collective Security Organization, including Tajikistan. Some of them were captured during the operation and they provided evidence.
We take this into consideration. I believe that it is very dangerous, because the training is intensive and diverse,
and there are many militants trained and they naturally focus on their own countries to return and fight against the regimes there.
As for the agreement between Afghanistan and the US about the military presence,
we are aware of it and believe that the mission should complete its work
after reporting to the UN Security Council that sanctioned its work in Afghanistan.
We would like to get the information about what was successful and what was not and compare it to our own data.
As for the military presence, I believe that we need to ensure stability in Afghanistan
and development of law-enforcement structures that can function by themselves.
But it is clear that Afghanistan has a right to conclude any treaties with the US about the presence of any military forces on its territory.
We cannot influence it. The fact that these objects are created, equipped and protected, is widely known,
and it is clear that these objects are not focused on ensuring stability in Afghanistan, the configuration is different.
You know that last year we worked on the system of crisis reaction on the basis of the practice that we gained during the events in Kyrgyzstan.
Today we already have an algorithm of reaction in a similar situation,
including decision-making about using certain potentials of the Collective Security Organization.
From the point of view of the normative base and the scope of activity, we are today prepared to react better than before.
If there are any applications from new countries, we will of course consider them, there is a special procedure.
Of course everything is in the hands of the Council of Collective Security.
We are not part of the negotiations, because the negotiations are conducted between the Russian authorities and NATO,
but we have the necessary information.
It is about help to NATO forces in Afghanistan that are acting in the interests of the Central Asian region too.
If these airports or objects will help NATO, I do not see anything horrible in it, unless NATO transports the military.
Russian law prescribes obligatory examination when transporting military freight. We went through this already.
It concerns the allies too - when it was necessary to transport some weapons to Tajikistan from some other state some years ago,
Russia insisted on the landing and examination of the plane.
As for the situation with Ulyanovsk, this will be the case, and all the concerns will disappear,
because uncontrolled transportation is impossible and there will be no military forces of foreign states
nor special jurisdiction for the representatives there.
If everything is done with Russian hands, Russian transport and examination,
it will ensure security and will not allow NATO to settle in Ulyanovsk.