| |
Below from Officer Review Magazine: June/July
1996
NATO-RUSSIA COOPERATION IN "IFOR":
DEEPENING THE SPECIAL PARTNERSHIP
by General George A. Joulwan
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
The Dayton Pence Accord has resulted in the most historically
significant military and political cooperation with Russia since
World War II. The international community forged a peace accord
bringing the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina to an end and simultaneously
lowered the risk of a wider war. As a result of the Accord, NATO
was charged with establishing the peace Implementation Force
(IFOR) to achieve the military provisions of the peace agreement.
NATO-Russian cooperation in IFOR has fostered mutual trust and
understanding between the Russian military and their Alliance
counterparts at all levels of IFOR planning and execution. Moreover,
in jointly committing to implementing peace in Bosnia, NATO and
Russia have taken historic steps in elaborating the post-Cold
War framework for future military cooperation.
FOUR HISTORIC STEPS IN 60 DAYS
NATO and Russian military planners developed the special arrangements
for this remarkable event in little more than two months. Their
intense planning efforts quickly developed the unique arrangements
for command and control of NATO and Russian troops deployed in
cooperation to help implement the peace. For the first time,
this arrangement mutually satisfied NATO and Russia's desire
for a special relationship in a military operation.
The first step was taken on 15 October, 1995 when a Russian
General Staff delegation, led by Colonel General Leontiy Shevtsov,
1st Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate, arrived
at my headquarters at SHAPE to begin discussions on the Russian
contribution to IFOR. General Shevtsov and his delegation received
orientation briefings and began the planning and coordinating
process with my NATO military planners. Colonel General Shevtsov
visited 5th Allied Tactical Air Force (5 ATAF) Headquarters in
Vicenza, Italy and the Headquarters of Ace Rapid Reaction Corps
(ARRC) in Germany. This orientation provided a basis for the
Russian delegation to understand Allied Command Europe's command
and control arrangements, general military tasks, and coordination
procedures for the NATO forces involved in the IFOR mission.
This foundation was important for the decisions that would follow
on how to integrate NATO and Russian forces to take best advantage
of this historic opportunity for joint cooperation.
The next step was development of a mutual understanding on
common military principles for conducting the IFOR mission. After
decades of Cold War separation, NATO and Russian military officers
were able to agree on fundamental principles in just 13 days.
On 28 October, General Shevtsov and I signed the first important
agreement that would shape the decisions to develop the command
and control arrangements between NATO and Russia. This agreement
provided the basis for all aspects of military cooperation: unity
of command, common mission, purpose and rules of engagement;
impartiality; no dual key decision making process; and single
systems of ground movement and air space control.
The third step centered on the crucial question of command
and control. Colonel General Shevtsov and I achieved unity of
command through an arrangement that placed the Russian contingent
under my command, through Colonel General Shevtsov, who would
serve as my Deputy for Russian Forces. In this arrangement, I
assign all missions and tasks for the Russian contingent through
the Deputy for Russian Forces. This command and control arrangement
met Russian requirements not to be included in the integrated
NATO military structure, but preserved the unity of command so
essential to protecting our soldiers, both NATO and Russian.
It was also agreed that the Russian Force contingent would operate
within the boundaries of Multi-National Division (North). The
MND(N) commander does not have the authority to assign missions
or tasks to the Russian contingent. However, the MND commander
would exercise tactical control over the Russian contingent.
Tactical control (vzaimodeistviye or 5 military interaction
in Russian) would be facilitated by Russian liaison groups assigned
to NATO headquarters and NATO liaison groups assigned to Russian
headquarters. On 7 November, the formal Terms of Reference for
the Deputy for Russian Forces was signed. On 8 November, Russian
Minister of Defense Pavel Grachev and US Secretary of Defense
Bill Perry agreed to the special, historical, and unprecedented,
command and control arrangements for Russian forces contributing
to the IFOR mission. Secretary Perry then presented the special
agreement to NATO's North Atlantic Council.
Finally on 21 December, 1995, I issued the Operational Directive
to the Russian Brigade. The Operational Directive established
Russia's force contribution, area of responsibility, mission,
and deployment schedule. It was agreed that a Russian airborne
brigade would implement the military provisions of the Dayton
Agreement in a critical 75 kilometer long section of the Zone
of Separation. The Russians would operate in the so-called Sapna
Thumb, an extremely difficult mission in an area that experienced
some of the most bitter and intensive fighting during the war.
Additionally, it was agreed, in a further show of solidarity,
that NATO and Russian troops would conduct joint patrols of the
Brcko area in the heart of the Posavina Corridor. As a demonstration
of IFOR impartiality, it was further agreed the Russian brigade
would establish one battalion headquarters on the territory of
the Federation and one battalion headquarters on the Bosnian
Serb side of the Zone of Separation. The Russian contingent had
completely deployed by D+45 to begin the dangerous process of
providing security for areas to be transferred from one side
to the other.
These four steps moved NATO-Russian cooperation from theory
to practice. NATO and Russia have forged a true partnership in
implementing the military provisions of the Dayton Agreements.
This partnership has sparked a new momentum in the overall NATO-Russian
military relationship, a relationship for too long held up by
the suspicions of the past. In just over 60 short days, NATO
and Russia took giant steps forward in harmonizing military concepts,
military terminology, and military planning procedures of two
military systems separated by political realities for over 50
years. In these four historic stops, Europe has moved closer
to the stability and security envisioned with the end of the
Cold War.
THE NATO-RUSSIA PARTNERSHIP
IN IMPLEMENTING THE PEACE
The Russian Brigade Headquarters and battalions completed
their deployments flawlessly as scheduled. Over 75 Russian strategic
airlift flights and 11 trains simultaneously moved Russian forces
into the theater as part of over 2,500 airlift flights, 280 trains,
and 30 ships moving IFOR forces. The professionalism of the Russian
military in planning and operating with NATO forces was critical
to this successful deployment under extremely difficult conditions.
Colonel General Shevtsov's operational-strategic planning staff
worked closely with the SHAPE Movement Control Center to orchestrate
the complex movement of forces into the theater. Additionally,
a five-man Russian Air Force team was established at the 5th
Allied Tactical Air Forces (5 ATAF) Headquarters in Vicenza,
Italy, to work the details of air movement into the theater with
their NATO partners. Another Russian Air Force team was located
at the main airfield in Tuzla to coordinate the arrival of Russian
forces.
Again, these liaison forces worked closely with their NATO
partners to coordinate the deployment. Another Russian liaison
group was located with headquarters of the Commander of MND(N),
MG Bill Nash, U.S. Army, while a NATO liaison group was established
with the Commander of the Russian Brigade, Colonel Lentsov. The
professionalism of the Russian soldiers and the close coordination
at all command levels ensured successful deployment of the 1,500-man
brigade. This effort is typical of the remarkable cooperation
going on today between Russian and NATO officers in accomplishing
this difficult mission.
The Russian brigade is performing magnificently at the tactical
level of the operation. They have established 12 check points
along the Zone of Separation and created extensive coordination
procedures with the brigades of MND(N) to include fire support
and medical evacuation procedures. NATO and Russian soldiers
are now conducting joint patrols, sharing intelligence, developing
joint assessment of minefields, and impartially implementing
the military provisions of the Dayton Accord. For example, by
D+60, the Zones of Separation were marked, the enforcement of
removing Bosnian and Serb military equipment from these zones
had been executed, joint military commissions had been established,
former warring factions continued to separate, demobilize, and
move heavy equipment to cantonment areas.
On 7 February, Russian Minister of Defense Pavel Grachev and
I had the privilege to visit MND(N) in Tuzla and Russian Brigade
Headquarters in Uglevik. Minster Grachev and I stressed the importance
of the mission and the continued cooperation between NATO and
Russian forces. It was clear that NATO and Russian soldiers had
become close partners in this peace enforcement mission, key
to ensuring continued stability in southern Europe.
DEEPENING THE SPECIAL
NATO-RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIP
This joint NATO-Russian mission proves that the two former
adversaries can work together and achieve peaceful goals through
military cooperation. It has also widened mutual understanding
and trust between NATO and Russian soldiers working in Uglevik,
Vicenza, Tuzla, and Mons. This mutual trust is the direct result
a natural result of a genuine partnership in a common
mission. This common mission also has improved the frequency
of contacts between NATO and Russia. Contacts which were as infrequent
as once every 18 months are now a day to day reality as the IFOR
mission continues. General Shevtsov's operational-strategic planning
group plays a critical role in IFOR planning. But more importantly,
his staff provides the General Staff in Moscow a window of understanding
about NATO and a direct channel to address military issues of
mutual interest, This is a giant step forward in the NATO-Russia
partnership in the post Cold War era.
We can, and should, build upon the success in IFOR. IFOR can
be the impetus for further Partnership for Peace initiatives
or joint exercises in the spirit of NATO policy on cooperation
with Russia. The lessons learned on NATO-Russia interoperability
should be institutionalized into both the NATO and Russian military
planning process through joint seminars, conferences, and working
groups. These activities can build upon our successes of today
and prevent these accomplishments from escaping the next generation
of NATO and Russian military leaders. NATO nations, Russia, and
all of Europe would benefit from the stability and predictability
offered by such regular military interaction.
CONCLUSIONS
Looking ahead, 1996 will be a year of great challenge and
promise for the Alliance. However, every course of action has
risks, and no one can predict with certainty Europe's future
security environment. But I believe we must be prepared to take
risks for long-term peace. The rewards for careful and deliberate
engagement can be great. The further development of a NATO-Russia
special partnership is as critical to the development of a Europe,
whole and free, as was the development of a special partnership
in implementing and ensuring a just and lasting peace in Bosnia.
As NATO, Russian, and other non-NATO troops jointly conduct their
difficult mission in Bosnia, we must not only accept the challenge
of implementing peace, but accept the challenge of answering
to future generations in building that new Europe. NATO's historic
cooperation with Russia in implementing the peace in Bosnia is
only the beginning of a new NATO-Russia relationship. This cooperation
can become an enduring framework for partnership into the next
century.
|
