INTERVIEW, Page 58A Soldier Talks PeaceMarshal SERGEI AKHROMEYEV, Gorbachev's top military adviser,speaks frankly about his nation's troubles and signals a desirefor an even faster pace toward disarmamentBy John Kohan and Karsten Prager
Q. In 1988 you sat in the cockpit of an American B-1 bomber,
and this summer Admiral William Crowe (the recently retired
Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff) was on a Soviet
nuclear submarine. Five years ago, that would have been
unthinkable. Are you astonished at what has happened in such a
short time?
A. I wouldn't say so. In 1986 the Soviet Union outlined and
defined the main principles of its foreign policy:
demilitarization, the absence of force in relations between states,
and democratization. Ideology should not influence an improvement
or a worsening in relations between states. We started to put these
principles into practice. This was noticed in the U.S. Americans
are pragmatic. They never believe words, only deeds.
Q. The West has responded coolly to President Gorbachev's Oct.
26 proposal in Finland to remove nuclear-armed submarines from the
Baltic Sea. Are you worried about making too many unilateral
concessions and not getting enough in return?
A. Someone had to be the first to start things going. When the
U.S. rejected negotiations on naval forces, the Soviet Union made
a big concession and said it was willing to wait and hold
negotiations on strategic weapons and armed forces in Europe.
Little is said about this nowadays, but it gave a major impetus to
the negotiations. If you consider this to be a concession, it was,
but if it were not for this concession we would still be marching
in place.
But this doesn't imply that the Soviet Union has dropped the
idea of negotiations about naval forces. Today we say that the time
has come. Maybe not tomorrow but, within a month, three months or
half a year's time, we should begin. It was no coincidence that
President Gorbachev raised that issue (in Finland). The world
press has not mentioned this. There has been no reaction.
Q. Perhaps we missed the signal?
A. No, there are people in the U.S. who ought to know and do
know. Many hours of our talks with Admiral Crowe were devoted to
this topic. Quite recently the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations,
Admiral Carlisle Trost said that everything should be done to keep
the naval problem secondary. He doesn't want these negotiations,
and he is not the only one. As for other concessions, they were
made on both sides. If someone believes that we are eliminating
more intermediate-range missiles than the U.S. and that this is a
defeat for the Soviet Union, let them. We do not consider that we
have lost anything from the point of view of security. We have no
intention of riding side by side, as in a horse race. If we see
goodwill on our partner's side, we take this into consideration,
but we believe that we are doing a lot, not less than the U.S., to
guarantee the success of negotiations.
Q. Do you see a time when there will be no Warsaw Pact and no
NATO?
A. We and our allies are ready to sit down today and negotiate
the simultaneous disbanding at least of the military aspects of the
blocs. That might result in some destabilization, because the world
has been structured on the basis of these two blocs, but we are
ready. Your Secretary of Defense said in Portugal that it shouldn't
be done, so it doesn't depend on us.
Q. What about foreign bases?
A. That is a painful matter. I always have this map with me.
(He shows map with U.S. bases encircling the Soviet Union.) This
is the way the U.S. has surrounded the Soviet Union; more than half
a million American troops and aircraft are deployed there. The
system was shaped at the end of the 1940s and 1950s and has its own
history, but nowadays there are no grounds to have bases that
threaten us. It is time that the U.S. think it over. In a number
of countries, troops are deployed because of the results of World
War II. We should agree to withdraw them. In Europe, that applies
not only to the armed forces of the U.S. and the Soviet Union but
to all states that have troops on foreign territory. Step by step,
all should be withdrawn.
Q. How do you summarize the East-West equation?
A. There is more trust between our countries, but unfortunately
we haven't fully eliminated the mistrust. That is not surprising
because in four years' time you cannot pull down mistrust built up
over 40 years. As a Soviet military man, I am concerned by some
actions of the U.S. I am saying this not to offend anyone but so
that the American public will know. First, the U.S. and NATO are
still pursuing a position-of-strength policy toward the Soviet
Union and the Warsaw Pact. We have elaborated a new defensive
doctrine and put it into practice. We are unilaterally reducing our
armed forces by 500,000 and have reduced them by 220,000 already.
But the U.S. and NATO have not introduced a new doctrine. They are
still guided by flexible response and nuclear deterrence. Why
aren't they changing their doctrine? That causes mistrust here.
Q. Are you saying . . .?
A. If you want me to be frank, there is a view that the U.S.
hopes to exploit our domestic difficulties and force unilateral
concessions from us. But if there are such hopes, they are deeply
wrong, because where the interests of Soviet security are
concerned, no matter how big our internal difficulties might be,
we will make no concessions at the expense of our national
security.
Q. But aren't people everywhere genuinely interested in
changing things?
A. When it concerns people, that is so. I have noticed this
about Americans, and you have probably noticed this here. But as
for politicians, unfortunately, it is not always so, and I am not
saying that just about Americans.
Q. Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze has described the
Soviet involvement in Afghanistan as illegal and immoral. Similar
things were said in the U.S. about the American involvement in Viet
Nam, and this had a demoralizing effect on the U.S. military for
many years. What impact do you see on the Soviet military?
A. You are not entirely correct in quoting Shevardnadze. He
said that the fact of deploying armed forces in Afghanistan was in
violation of Soviet laws, and it really was a violation of
international law. I have my opinion about whether this was immoral
or not -- this is a separate topic. Why did it happen? It was
certainly the wrong decision. The Soviet Union was never planning
to solve the Afghanistan problem with the help of its armed forces.
It was fantasy to think that a military solution could be achieved
by deploying a contingent of 100,000 in a mountainous country with
a territory of 652,200 sq. km (251,800 sq. mi.). It was obvious
at first glance to military and political leaders that the task was
to support the Afghanistan regime. But every action follows its own
rules. It is easy to deploy forces, but objective realities then
compel you to take other decisions. From this point of view, the
armed forces were pushed into participating in long-term military
activities, and, of course, we could see that there was no prospect
of a military solution. There were political reasons too, but that
was a major reason that our troops were withdrawn.
Q. Will the experience of Afghanistan leave a scar on the
military?
A. It is obvious that there is a scar on the body of our
society. Our people condemn the fact that we deployed forces in
Afghanistan. They believe it was wrong. But it has also scarred
those who participated in the war, especially the young,
demobilized from the army. Many say they will never be themselves
again. I also participated in the war and was there for 2 1/2
years. I was an older soldier who could endure the scars, but the
effect on the young was different.
Q. Will the Soviet Union build a monument to those who died in
Afghanistan, like the monument for the Viet Nam War dead in
Washington?
A. I think it would be just and right. It took some time in
the U.S. to build this monument and do justice to those killed in
action. I believe that after some time we will have a monument too.
Q. Whenever governments take money from the military, there is
always grumbling. What President Gorbachev is proposing, with your
support, is a drawdown of the military. Will the armed forces be
happy about having some of their toys taken away?
A. Whether the U.S. defense budget is $299 billion or $320
billion, it would have no effect on the standard of living of the
American people. But in our conditions, an increase or decrease of
the military budget by 6 billion or 7 billion rubles has a direct
influence on the material well-being of the people. Any cut in the
military budget makes it possible to come more quickly out of our
difficulties. The military is well aware of that. We are keeping
the minimum required for maintaining the armed forces in a state
of readiness to rebuff a possible aggressor. When the situation in
the country is hard, everyone should do some belt tightening.
Q. Have you ever considered abolishing the draft and going to
a volunteer army?
A. The U.S. should thank God for its geographical position.
Such threatening neighbors it has -- Canada and Mexico! Don't print
that. I don't want to offend the Canadians and Mexicans. The point
is that Americans are living in safety. Except for nuclear weapons,
an enemy cannot reach the U.S. Our political and geographical
situation is completely different. We are located between Europe
and Asia and are encircled by American bases. No matter what
conflict might arise in the world, the U.S. can quite easily deploy
its armed forces without rushing. No such thing for us. If the
situation became serious, we would be forced to change to wartime
organization quickly. That is why we need to have very well-trained
reserves and armed forces organized on the basis of the draft.
Q. What is the impact of events in Eastern Europe -- the
changes in Poland, Hungary and East Germany -- on Soviet military
thinking?
A. We proceed from the position that the foreign policy of the
Soviet Union is based on demilitarization. The use of force is
ruled out, except when someone confronts the Soviet Union from a
position of strength. Some Soviets may approve of the changes in
Hungary and Poland, others not. That's their opinion. Our policy
is such that we are not interfering in these internal processes.
Q. Let us put it this way. If the U.S., as you say, pursues a
policy of strength and, at the same time, key Warsaw Pact members
are changing their view of the world, including their relationship
to the Soviet Union, that must have some impact on military
thinking?
A. You are posing a hypothetical question. As of now this has
not happened. In Poland and Hungary certain internal processes are
going on, but these countries have made clear that they will remain
members of the Warsaw Pact, with all their obligations. We have
dropped the idea of attaching ideology to international relations.
Hungary and Poland are members of the alliance because it meets
their national interests.
Q. There was obviously a lot of concern about the military's
role in suppressing the demonstrations in Tbilisi last April (in
which 20 people were killed). An inquiry, which was published in
the Georgian press, has some very critical things to say about the
military leadership. What should be the role of the army in
preserving order in the country?
A. How the troops were deployed in Tbilisi was the decision of
the Georgian government. It was not the decision of the military.
It is, of course, another matter that everything ended so badly.
But there are other areas, like Azerbaijan, where the armed forces
are preventing events that result in bloodshed and are keeping
order. What happened in Georgia was a single incident. A painful
event. But it did not happen at the initiative of the military. Our
government learned a lesson: our armed forces do not participate
in such events now, and local governments have no right to give
them orders.
Q. So the orders come from Moscow?
A. Yes. When it was necessary to deploy the military, for
example, to guard the railway between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the
Supreme Soviet voted for it.
Q. Since you are now a People's Deputy, a political topic:
after a life of discipline, you are a member of a parliament, where
discipline is not the word to describe what goes on.
A. I fully accept that this parliament is the supreme body of
state power. There is no other body in this country that can make
major decisions on domestic and foreign policy. Our military, by
the way, especially the command, is very disciplined and brought
up in a spirit of respect for the bodies of power in this country.
In the U.S., there are many who underestimate this factor and think
that in the Soviet Union the highest military command can get its
own way on major matters. This is absolutely out of the question.
Your estimation of your own military would be no different. It acts
in a spirit of respect toward the President and Congress.
Q. And the Soviet parliament?
A. It is, as I said, the supreme body of power. It is quite
another question whether it is fully ready to carry out all its
functions. There are many Deputies who do not have enough
knowledge, experience, patience and even mutual respect. But it
will come. With every passing month, the situation becomes more
normal and settled. We have to learn behavior that corresponds to
the importance of this body.
Q. Do you enjoy being a member of parliament more than being
a marshal?
A. (Laughing.) I am already of such an age and position that
knowing my duties -- any duties -- I try to carry them out. That
is what I enjoy. It was time for me to leave active military
service. The military should have an age limit, and, understanding
that very well, I gave up my post.
Q. But you still wear a military uniform?
A. I've been wearing it for 50 years. How can I take it off?
Q. We wouldn't suggest it. It's a good-looking uniform,
particularly all those ribbons.
A. I don't wear it because it looks impressive. Somehow it
