A Soldier Talks Peace Marshal

By JOHN KOHAN AND KARSTEN PRAGER Sergei Akhromeyev

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 feels like my skin, and I can't remove that.