The Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe and the Vienna Convention were developed and put into effect at a time when European armies numbering in the millions were waiting for orders to attack each other.

Logic suggests these treaties would be more effective now that Europe is less militarized and Russia and the West are moving toward partnership. But the agreements were designed primarily to prevent a large-scale war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, not to prevent the kind of action currently taking place in Yugoslavia.

One good example is a basic Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) principle: all borders in Europe are inviolable.

When the Helsinki Final Act was signed in 1971, few would have predicted that borders in Europe would be changed not by a war between countries but as a result of conflict within a state.

All attempts to modernize the OSCE to make it effective in preventing and regulating internal conflicts have failed. The organization possesses no executive powers, and is unable even to adopt an effective decision.

After it expanded by accepting former Soviet states, the OSCE turned into a discussion club. Recently, the organization has failed to succeed in a single attempt at regulating internal conflicts, including Nagorno-Karabakh or Bosnia.

The Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe and the Vienna Convention on Measures of Confidence in the Military Sphere have proven even less effective. The treaties imposed quantitative restraints on all kinds of weapons and military activities, such as troop deployment and movements, and introduced a detailed system of mutual checks and inspections. The principal goal was to eliminate the possibility of a rapid concentration of troops or an actual attack by NATO or the Warsaw Pact. The treaties set limits on NATO and the Warsaw Pact, not on individual countries.

In the present situation-with the Warsaw Pact no longer in existence and Russia's military no longer in Europe-it is senseless to speak about the balance of military forces in Europe. The entry of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic-former Warsaw Pact members-into NATO dealt the final blow to the Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe.

The West is now pursuing an idea pronounced by Richard Holbrooke in 1995: a "new architecture of European security" based on NATO. In fact, NATO has managed to create a system that is an alternative to the OSCE.

On the political level, almost all European countries are members of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, and on the military level, NATO has managed to extend its influence in Eastern Europe and the CIS via the Cooperation for Peace program.

It is clear that NATO's operation in Yugoslavia will end up in one or another form of surrender. So far, the Alliance has demonstrated unified will and decisiveness, but as the mission drags on, Western European countries will confront major problems related to the return of the refugees and the restoration of Yugoslavia's ruined industries and infrastructures.

How should Russia behave in this situation? Not long ago, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, infuriated by NATO bombing, threatened that Russia would withdraw from the Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe. Judging by available information, several generals in the Russian Defense Ministry demanded that a number of military formations and hardware be moved from Siberia to western frontiers.

That would be a violation of the Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe and would mark its end.

Even if troops are successfully relocated and deployed, Russia will not manage to achieve parity with NATO. After all, from a strategic viewpoint, there is basically no difference between the ratio of 1:25 and that of 1:18.

Russia can only manage such re-deployment at the cost of defense capacities on its oriental frontiers.

Indeed, Russian generals began noting that Moscow and Beijing have concurring strategic interests for the first time in 30 years. Common interests extend beyond a possible joint strategy against NATO. While Moscow has shown concern for U.S. plans to develop a strategic anti-ballistic-missile defense system, China sees a serious threat in a regional anti-missile system to be created.

Such prerequisites for siding with China, however, may prove to be built on sand. Damanski Island, a source of border disputes in the past, may very well reappear.

A more realistic approach in Russia is maintained by those in the military who believe the existing European security system, however formal, must remain safe from distortion under any circumstances.

The latter believe the West is interested in at least preserving its formal security relations with Russia with a view to the Yugoslav crisis. Negotiation on adjusting the Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe may serve as a channel for maintaining these relations. As the West sees no serious threat in Russia's conventional armed forces, it can afford significant concessions.

With Russia-NATO tensions high, Western negotiators have agreed to let Russia increase its armed forces in Europe and preserve its army group in Northern Caucasus under the new Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe. The new treaty affects individual countries as opposed to blocs of countries.

The West has also proved itself ready to restrict its extra-territorial-boundary emergency deployment forces to three brigades. This gives Russia relative security guarantees, as even if NATO decides to deploy three brigades in Poland, the outfit will obviously be insufficient for an invasion in Russia. European NATO members, already anticipating military actions in which the United States may not wish to participate, would like to prepare exclusively European structures within the alliance's joint armed forces.

Herein lies an opportunity for Russia to take part in new European security structures.

Activities aimed at developing a joint non-strategic anti-missile defense system provide yet another opportunity.

A reasonable strategy for Russia would be to insist on resuming joint activities aimed at creating a new European security system, instead of just complaining about the West's injustices.