Soviet Military Doctrine (Hansard, 22 May 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper)
My Lords, Soviet spokesmen have long claimed that their military doctrine is defensive. They have recently announced planned unilateral cuts in their conventional forces and have accepted in principle Western proposals for equal ceilings at levels proposed by the alliance on tanks and armoured troop carriers. But these unilateral cuts have yet to be fully implemented and whether a detailed agreement which would eliminate the conventional imbalance can be achieved has yet to be determined. It is also unclear how remaining Soviet forces would be structured.

§ Viscount Mersey
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware of the extent of Mr. Gorbachev's problem? Were he genuinely to seek parity with NATO, I understand that he would have to scrap 4,000 aircraft; 30,000 guns; 35,000 tanks and one million soldiers. Does the noble Baroness agree that cuts of that magnitude would cause chaos both to the Russian economy and to the Russian military high command?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I can only say that we heartily welcome any intention of transferring 2 military spending to the civilian sector. We all recognise that Mr. Gorbachev has a monumental task ahead. That is why we welcome the acceptance of our figures for tanks to be reduced to 20,000 per side and armoured troop carriers to be reduced to 28,000 per side. But we still have some agreement to reach on artillery.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is highly desirable that there should be no exchange here? While we welcome the transfer of the Soviet forces from the offensive to the defensive, we should take great care that we ourselves in turn do not go from the defensive to the offensive.

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I feel sure that everybody in the Government joins me in agreeing with that.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, while we need to maintain an effective and vigilant defence capability, does the noble Baroness agree that the cuts in conventional and nuclear forces ordered by President Gorbachev indicate a significant change in Soviet military strategy? Can the; noble Baroness say how the Government will respond to President Gorbachev's proposal to reduce armed forces to common levels by 1997? Without committing herself too far, does she agree that all these are extremely significant changes?

§ Baroness Hooper
Yes, my Lords, we agree that we are certainly moving in the right direction. As the noble Lord will be aware, two sets of negotiations are currently under way on conventional forces in Europe, between members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and on confidence-building measures with 35 members of CSCE, both of which began on 6th March this year. I can report that the atmosphere so far is most cordial and workmanlike. Progress is being made.

§ Lord Bonham-Carter
My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise that we are very encouraged by the positive nature of her Answer to the Question 3 put by her noble friend Lord Mersey? That contrasts with the answers given last week to what appeared to be a series of questions on Soviet arms from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. There is also the Question tabled tomorrow by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. We on these Benches can only assume that they are purely coincidental. Does the noble Baroness also agree that the unilateral cuts which President Gorbachev has made of 500,000 troops and a substantial number of tanks, with the suggestions of demilitarisation of the Chinese-USSR frontier which has come up recently, are matters for encouragement? Is it not unfortunate that the President of the United States should regard these matters as propaganda ploys and that the Secretary of State of the United States should say that they are designed to divide the alliance?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, perhaps I may refer back to the answer that I gave to the previous question. I should have thought that the wholly constructive attitude of the two sets of negotiations which are currently going on in relation to conventional forces must be welcomed.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, can the noble Baroness give us any information on the one part of the Soviet offensive which seems to be continuing in full force; namely, its espionage?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, I believe that that is a different matter, rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, nevertheless, has not the Minister noticed that since Gorbachev took over, the assessment of his actions and of the actions of the Soviet Government made by the German Government have proved a great deal more realistic than those made by the British Government? Is the noble Baroness aware that some of the suspicions voiced—perhaps quite naturally—by Ministers from the government Benches have proved in effect to be completely unfounded?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, as we understand it, the Soviet aim is the denuclearisation of Europe. That was the argument put forward recently by Mr. Gorbachev. For NATO, we believe that SNF, for example, remains an essential element of deterrence. Given this conceptual difference in objectives, we see no prospect for a fruitful outcome to any arms control negotiations which assume total denuclearisation and forget that element of deterrence.

§ Viscount Mersey
My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords wish Mr. Gorbachev a fair wind. Is my noble friend, and all noble Lords, aware that there is a big internal problem in Russia, according to an article in The Times written a week ago by Mr. Michael Evans? It suggested that the Kremlin itself finds it very hard to count Russian tanks and other equipment and that Mr. Gorbachev has set up a special unit to do this. However, this unit is being 4 blocked by the Russian general staff. Will my noble friend comment on that?

§ Baroness Hooper
My Lords, as I have already said, we recognise the monumental task that Mr. Gorbachev has ahead of him. As I have said, we can only welcome the intention to transfer military spending to the civilian sector. We can only hope that an adequate outcome will result from all the negotiations that are taking place. However, it is an interesting fact that the figures that have been put forward by the Warsaw Pact countries recently are higher than the estimates that we already had.