(5 of 8)
And again today, when détente has become fairly tangible on the European continent, when the European conference in Helsinki has charted paths toward broader peaceful cooperation and when talks are under way in Vienna to reduce the level of military confrontation, there is a hullabaloo about "the Soviet military threat to Western Europe." Apparently, some in the West have found it very difficult to stomach both political détente and especially the intention to reinforce it by lessening the concentration of the military forces of the two sides in the center of Europe.
It so happened historically that large numbers of troops and armaments of the two military-political blocs are concentrated here facing each other. Different in their structures, the forces of either side in sum total approximately equal each other. Such a military balance has existed in Europe for several decades now.
But a huge concentration of armies and armaments is dangerous in itself. Peaceful ties will be far easier to build if this concentration is reduced on both sides without upsetting the existing balance of forces. This is precisely what we are seeking to achieve in Vienna.
Yet, we are being told in reply that a reduction is possible only if the U.S.S.R. and other members of the Warsaw treaty cut down their forces to a significantly greater degree than the NATO countries. Otherwise, there will allegedly be a "Soviet military threat." And it is to the tune of these incessantly repeated allegations that military budgets are frantically growing and NATO forces in Europe are built up.
What has happened? Why has the balance that existed for many years suddenly become a "threat," and come to think of it, whom are we "threatening"? Are we really claiming a single square kilometer of the territory of any state? Does not the U.S.S.R. have normal and even good, peaceful relations with practically all countries of Western Europe? Is not the Soviet Union a major sponsor of, and active participant in, all actions to strengthen peace and develop peaceful cooperation in Europe?
Why then mislead people, scaring them with "the Soviet military threat"?
I should like to emphasize once again what I have repeatedly said of late: we are not seeking military superiority over the West, we do not need it. All we need is reliable security. And the security of both sides will no doubt be greater with the arms race curbed, war preparations curtailed and the political climate of international intercourse made healthier.
Q. Since the announcement of normalization between Washington and Peking, there has been much talk in the U.S. of "playing the China card" and presumably some Chinese hope to play the American card. What do you think of such concepts, and what is the probable future of Soviet relations with China?
A. There are some in the U.S. and in other Western countries who have found the course hostile toward the Soviet Union followed by the present Chinese leadership so much to their liking that they are tempted to turn Peking into an instrument of pressure on the world of socialism. Such a policy appears to me to be adventurous and highly dangerous for the cause of universal peace.