IRONICAL   RESPONSE

V.M.Dolgiy

I  would like to draw your special attention  to the most interesting speeches of  the participants in the opinion of  the organizers of the Round  Table. I think  that none of the participants of the conference doubt  that the theme of our Round Table is the most difficult as to its presentation and interpretation. Now let`s try to discuss  the above reports  in the following way : I shall  express my own opinion and you after  having  entered into internal  polemics with me  and  having thought  everything  over  will find your new approach  to the  solution of the problem.   The first thing to which I have paid my attention is the lack of clear terminological base. The terms,  used  by  the reporters allow their  free interpretation and very often   bring us back to the times of the “Cold  War”. As to me , the very name of the Round Table i.e. “strategic stability”  is being associated  with  the “strategy of  stagnation”. The term “ strategy” itself implies adequate reaction  to rapidly changing world.  “Nuclear stability” is understandable for me-  it  means military  parity. Stability in foreign policy is a strive  for peaceful  solution of the arising international  conflicts and it is also clear . But as to the “strategic stability”- there are questions.

One of the reports  has criticized the security law. Indeed,  the law defines security as a  condition in which the interests of  the state,  public  society and individual are protected. And whether  these interests always coincide ?  After the Chernobyl  disaster  the first thing which was done  in the interests of  the state : all information about  the extent of the tragedy  and its all possible grave consequences  for  the life and health  of the people was  made a  secret. And whether it is in the public interest s that  many regions have  happened  to be at the edge of total  gene pool lost. And the individuals  who  could not take effective medicines or  use  means of protection  , where they are ? They don’t  exist any more. And the undeclared war in Chechnya   - we shall not appraise it , but  whether  the interests of the  state and the Mothers who  have lost their sons  in peaceful  times  coincide ? Wrong interpretation  of the main provisions of the law did not  allow  to make up the concept of the  state security, which could be accessible and understandable for every citizen.

Suppose,  that  the term security be defined  as  condition for  development of  the state,  society and  individual.  In this case, everything    which  interferes  in   this development   , creates  threats,  risks and dangers which could hardly  be estimated   by  quantity  or quality .  And everyone would  understand and appraise  the programs  of  development of the state and the society  basing upon his own experience. The program of development  is  in the right way if  working and living conditions of the people  are being improved, the cost of services are becoming cheaper,  medicine service and education are  becoming more accessible morality   and culture are raising  in a broad sense of the word. And it would be understandable and clear.  On the basis of such program  it could be possible  to consolidate the public society and to raise patriotism of each  individual.

Second  thing , that has drawn  my attention  is  a “unanimous  thinking” of the representatives of the military and defense industries.  One  should note, that  in the process of “perestroika” a considerable  social strata  of the scientific and technical  intellectuals , engaged  in the “defense branch” of the military industry, as well as engineering and technical staff , including officers of high ranks ,  have turned  up closer  to the social  bottom  rather  than to the  top,  the place they  took by law in the soviet times. That’ s  why , at the subconscious  level , they yearn  for revenge.  And the rematch is  possible only in case that the priority in the national policy   be given to strengthening of the  power  block and  to arms race. Their  speeches  at the Round Table  have come to the same  “inevitable  blow” in  the main enemy  under which  the United States  are  unambiguously  understood   (some participants refer to China as well) And  if so,  how their elites  should  treat us ? Probably , to treat us the same way . And to what  place will we come? It is unlikely,  that we shall increase our  security  in the new arms race under condition  of the weakened  defense potential   and prior  oligarchy in the social sphere. Whether the  civil society accept such policy?  Whether  such policy unite  the people?  I doubt  very much. I see no  sense  to consider  the reports of this  rather large group  of participants in detail, since it is  a past century which has brought us to the deadlock. We have lost the arms race in the “Cold War, and the majority  of the politicians think so.   

One more  idea  concerning  reports  of the above said specialists: some of them  tried to discuss the  certain technical and tactical characteristics of  weapons ,   military structures   e.t.c.   It  seems   rather irrelevant  to do so at the public forum.  One thing –  to discuss the total approach to the problems of security at the level of a doctrine  and the other  thing  to discuss  formation  of real military structures  and production of new weapon.  I think  that it is the priority of the President, the Commander-in-Chief, and the corresponding structures of the Defense Ministry  and General Staff.

One of the most  strong alternatives to arms race could be the position in which we declare , that we do not participate in any races but shall locate sufficient rocket-nuclear  potential  near  to our  nuclear power  stations  and storages of radio-active wastes.  And every try to strike us the preventive blow will be  ruinous   for everybody, since  phenomena of transfer of the vast masses of the radio-active  substances  has no bounds.

The third thing which seems  surprising  is the lack of statements  where  the problem of security  in the XXI   was being solved not exclusively by means  of weapon  but  of enhance  of  legal awareness of population  and  its  active participation in establishment of  new  relationships  within the states  on the basis of the law,  respect  for  life of each human being . Practically, there is no other way out.  At the modern rate  of  the science and  techniques  development    and in absence of the agreements providing international control  it is impossible  to exclude  probability  of  creation of  certain  substances  or conditions  which  may ,say, cause chain reaction in the atmosphere of  the Earth or  change the spatial structure of water e.t.c

It is obvious,  that the population of any country in its majority needs  no war.  The producers of weapon and politicians, who possess shares of the engaged companies  and  are their  lobbyists or some political  circles , striving for world hegemony , need the war.  It is natural that , if we are  in the  first rows  to declare the new ideology, where will  be no place for military confrontation   and  national  wealth will be redistributed  not by forcible actions  and revolutions  but  by means of  weighed  agreements,    growing culture  and legal awareness  in a fair way. We shall show a good example to the whole world  and our security will only  gain. And  though  such approach may seem naïve  and quietly  possible ,  I see no other way to the overall  peace.  It goes without saying, that this way is very complicated, since it requires the reconstruction of the  mentality , creation of the new ideology, capable  to revive  the processes of unification  of  different strata of the society  inside the state and on further  stages  on the international level. And here  , as an example,  the Internet  may serve  a linking chain  for the saidn processes and it may turn into the “ world tissue” instead of  being the “ world  rubbish hip”. That’s how I  see the themes of our next Round Table on security in the XXI  century.