Among the most discussed events in recent years is the deployment in Russia, or rather, near Ulyanovsk, of the transport base of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As soon as its appearance was announced, theses began to appear in society that NATO was going to deploy a full-fledged military presence in the Russian Federation. To what extent were such expectations justified?
The heart of the matter
Why did the Russian public suddenly decide that a NATO base in Ulyanovsk is opening? In March 2012, the press secretary of the head of the Ulyanovsk region said that negotiations were held with the participation of the authorities of the region with representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance for accommodation in the region of a NATO transit point, namely, at the Ulyanovsk-Vostochny airport.
Later, information appeared that the Ulyanovsk region was interested in placing the relevant infrastructure on its territory due to the use of the transport capacities of local suppliers, as well as the prospects for the formationnew tax payments and the creation of several thousand jobs. The governor of the region also said that the project had been prepared for a long time, and it was beneficial for the region.
At the level of the highest state institutions of power, an explanation appeared, according to which Ulyanovsk was to be used as a transit point for aircraft of the North Atlantic Alliance. It was assumed that only certain types of cargo would be transported when using its infrastructure - in particular, tents, food, medicines. The target destinations for the shipments were Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO military equipment was not subject to transportation through Ulyanovsk.
Public reaction
This information caused a wide public outcry. The population of the region got a reason to think that a real NATO base was being opened in Ulyanovsk, and began to organize protests. Theses criticizing the position of the Russian authorities began to be actively disseminated in the media. Almost immediately followed by comments from representatives of the Alliance. Thus, the head of the NATO Information Bureau, which operates in Moscow, confirmed that NATO troops would absolutely not be able to be near Ulyanovsk.
Legislative basis for cooperation
Interaction between the authorities of the Ulyanovsk region and 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 according to whichthe corresponding military cargo transportation 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 loy alty of the Russian authorities, which is not based on the current legislation.
What did the public, media representatives and Russian experts fear? First of all, the fact that the so-called "transit point" could easily be converted into a full-fledged military base.
Could the point become a military base?
The main argument of supporters of this point of view was the fact that the US military proposed renaming an infrastructure facility with a similar status - a transit center owned by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Kyrgyzstan - a commercial transit center. That is, as some members of the public considered, having located an object formally not directly related to the armed forces on the territory of the Russian Federation, NATO could subsequently transform its status into a different one, less consistent with Russia's national interests.
Another public concern is that NATO member countries have begun to show a suspiciously unhe althy interest in Russia.
Why did NATO need Ulyanovsk?
Representatives of expert circles drew attention to the fact that NATO could well use more economically advantageous ways of cargo transit bypassing the Russian Federation. So, for example, it was assumed that containers with cargo should first be delivered to Ulyanovsk by aircraft, thenreloaded onto trains, then redirected to the B altic coast, and after that - to their destinations. The NATO army, according to analysts, could well use alternative routes that were significantly shorter.
For example, it was possible to request transit through the closest Alliance allies in the Middle East or Europe. The location of NATO bases thus made it possible to launch cargo through more economically viable routes. But for some reason, the Alliance began to look for other options to ensure transit. NATO member countries decided for some reason to use Russian territories, and this did not please many members of the public.
Experts, who feared the start of transit of NATO cargo through the Russian Federation, also drew attention to the lack of tangible benefits for Russia in such cooperation, despite assurances from politicians that this could help create jobs and increase tax revenues to the budget.
What is the benefit for Russia?
Representatives of the public began to doubt that the NATO transit base near Ulyanovsk could become a real factor in the positive development of business relations between the Russian Federation and the states of the Alliance, and above all the United States. The Americans, according to experts, with a small degree of probability could be willing to evaluate Russia's actions in a full-fledged partnership. Experts did not find any obvious economic benefit for Russia in the deployment of a NATO transit facility near Ulyanovsk.
Similarly, members of the public did not see the prospects for constructive cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Alliance also in the military sphere.
Were there any prospects for military cooperation?
Many analysts felt that the prospects for cooperation in the military field, on the contrary, could have a negative impact on Russia's national security. According to experts, the NATO transit base in Ulyanovsk would soon require maintenance and protection. Their implementation would involve either the involvement of the Alliance military, or the hiring of Russian security structures. Also, the experts 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 full-fledged NATO military base nevertheless appears on the site of the corresponding transit facility, then it can be used as a place from which the Alliance aircraft will be able to carry out combat missions. And these are geopolitical risks. In turn, the experts did not see any obvious preferences for the Russian Federation in terms of solving national security problems.
Interests of the Russian Federation in ensuring transit
In one of the theses accompanying the prospects for cooperation between Russia and NATO in the project near Ulyanovsk, the idea was expressed that the Russian Federation should support transit, as it is interested in NATO's army continuing to be in Afghanistan and keeping the situation with the spread extremism is under control from there.
But the activity of the Americans, who have been present in this Middle Eastern state for several years, gave rise to many experts to come to different conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the deployment of the Alliance army in this region. Thus, drug trafficking from Afghanistan has grown, as some analysts have calculated, by several dozen times. The level of terrorism rose, and extremist networks continued to operate.
Washington decided to strengthen its positions
Assessments of the prospects for cooperation between NATO and the Russian Federation in the framework of organizing transit through Ulyanovsk in Russian society were presented in the widest range. Thus, 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. At the same time, the United States was satisfied with the prices for possible transit - for example, the delivery of 1 kg of cargo to Afghanistan, according to some experts, should have cost the NATO budget 15 dollars.
The airlines that were considered as contractors - primarily Volga-Dnepr, as analysts considered, would hardly have refused such proposals. Thus, starting small - organizing a transit base - Washington would try, experts say, to expand NATO's zone of influence in the Russian Federation, for example, by offering to purchase certain types of supplies from Russian suppliers. What should be of interest not only to airlines.
The position of the authorities
Manythe experts were quick to conclude that the Russian 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 members 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 - its board of trustees was headed by Rodrik Braithwaite, who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK. At the level of federal authorities, the Russian-American project was generally also supported.
What will partners say?
After information about the agreement between Russia and NATO began to spread in the media, some representatives of the expert community felt that such a step could introduce a significant imbalance in relations between the Russian Federation and its closest partners - in particular, the CSTO states. A particularly sensitive moment in this aspect could be 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 a number of analysts, the closest allies of the Russian Federation could have unpleasant questions to the country's leadership regarding such an unusual precedent of interaction with an organization with which Russia often has tangible contradictions in the field of geopolitics.
Experts pointed out that there are very few historical precedents that would indicate that NATO is seekingto build partnerships on an equal footing with Russia. Quite the opposite, there are telling precedents in the recent history of diplomatic communications that point to the opposite. For example, it is known that in 1990 NATO Secretary of State promised that the organization would not move to the East. But NATO bases on the world map, as you know, include several states of the former socialist camp at once. One of them, as analysts suggested, could soon appear on the territory of Russia.
Well, the nature of doubts and fears of experts was then quite clear. But were NATO forces able to penetrate the territory of the Russian Federation in reality?
Abstracts and facts
The fears of the experts, which we mentioned above, did not come true. Moreover, the evaluation of such theses was subsequently given not the most positive. So, some members of the public were accused of almost anti-state position. One way or another, no NATO military base appeared in Ulyanovsk, although the same transit point was nevertheless formed.
Regarding the thesis that there was no benefit for Russia in placing the corresponding object on its territory, there was a counterargument. So, according to one version, the Russian Federation could use the fact that NATO has a transit point in its own interests, as a possible tool to influence the position of the Alliance on certain political issues. That is, it was the representatives of NATO, and not their Russian partners, who should have been afraid of negative consequences. At the same time, some political interest in the Russian Federation in the organization of cargo transportationafter all, there was through Ulyanovsk: if Russia had refused to cooperate, then the Alliance would most likely have turned to Georgia. And this would mean strengthening NATO's military presence in the region.
Regarding the thesis that NATO had more profitable alternatives to the organization of cargo transportation, there was also a counterargument. The fact is that one of the key alternate routes - through Pakistan - could, due to the changeable geopolitical situation, be closed. Real alternatives to it could not be found within a reasonable time - even if the scenario with the use of transit bases in Georgia were activated.
Let's consider other significant conclusions of experts who criticized the positions of experts who feared the negative consequences of the presence of a NATO transit point in the Ulyanovsk region. Thus, it is especially emphasized that the goods that must go through Ulyanovsk are subject to mandatory inspection by Russian customs authorities. Military specialists from NATO countries do not participate in this process. The main feature that characterizes any NATO bases in Europe or another region of the world is significant sovereignty over the jurisdiction of the state hosting the military from the Alliance. That is, access to NATO bases for the authorities of the country that allowed their construction, as a rule, is very limited. The transit base in Ulyanovsk did not meet this criterion. NATO could not forbid the control of the activity of the relevant facility by the Russian authorities.
Activity of using the database
The Alliance transit base near Ulyanovsk wasopen. But practically she did not participate in any way. At least, there are no facts available to the general public that would reflect its regular use. According to some NATO analysts, in fact it turned out to be not very profitable to interact with partners from the Russian Federation. At the same time, assessments of this state of affairs are very different. NATO representatives speak in the vein that it is expensive to transport goods through the Russian Federation, and Russian military experts believe that the Alliance countries still did not dare to make themselves dependent on the infrastructure in the Russian Federation.
CV
So, what conclusions can we draw based on the available information regarding 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 members of the public who expressed concern about the precedent of interaction between the Russian Federation and the Alliance under consideration?
First of all, it can be noted that 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 did not at all correspond to the signs of a full-fledged military base - neither by the nature of the goods transported, nor by legal criteria.
Russia could still derive political and, in a number of aspects, economic benefits from the deployment of a NATO transit point on its territory. However, the Alliance, having agreed on the potential use of relevant resources in the Ulyanovsk region, practically did not use the infrastructure available in the Russian Federation.
The location of the NATO transit point in Ulyanovsk could not bring any obvious threats to the national security of the Russian Federation, since all transported goods were subject to inspection by Russian customs officers. The presence of NATO military specialists in order to exercise any powers inherent in ensuring the operation of a full-fledged base was not expected in Russia.
The Russian authorities, according to one version, played a useful move from the point of view of geopolitics: an agreement was concluded with NATO and all the necessary conditions were created for the Alliance to use the relevant infrastructure. But the fact that NATO did not take advantage of the opportunity, some analysts believe, characterizes its actions as not very constructive. At least in the economic aspect, since it turned out to be too expensive to transport goods through Ulyanovsk, this could well have been calculated in advance.
