Home >> Former USSR >> Russia

     Email   Print 

The NATO-Russia Summit: Russia closer to long-standing goals

Lorna Thomas - 11/16/2010

In June 2000, ahead of a summit with Vladimir Putin, former President Bill Clinton received the Charlemagne Prize in Aachen, Germany. (Charlemagne, king of the Franks was crowned “Emperor of the Romans” on 25 December 800 by Pope Leo III in St Peter's Basilica, Rome.) In Aachen, Mr Clinton stated Russia must become "fully part of Europe".

"No doors can be sealed shut to Russia, not NATO's, not the EU's," he said. "The alternative would be a future of harmful competition between Russia and the West and the end of our vision of an undivided continent."

Russia does indeed consider itself part of Europe and is moving closer to acting with Europe on the world's stage in military, political, economic and religious spheres.

With the upcoming November 2010 NATO summit, as Russia moves closer to both NATO and the EU, it also appears closer to achieving Russian leaders' own long-standing goals regarding NATO and joint European security.

NATO was formed ­in 1949 “to counter the threat of post-war communist expansion as the Soviet Union sought to extend its influence in Europe.

"It has traditionally stated its general aim as being to "safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation" of its members by promoting "stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area".

"Members agree that an armed attack against one shall be considered an attack against them all, and that they will come to the aid of each other.”

“Profile: NATO, BBC, 3 August 2009”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1549072.stm

NATO's relations with Russia were negatively affected by Russia's “peacekeeping” operations during the August 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict. NATO - at the time under former Secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer - issued the following statement on 19 August, 2008:

“The conflict between Georgia and Russia has compromised regional stability and security. We deeply deplore the use of force in the conflict between Georgia and Russia.

Russian military action has been disproportionate and inconsistent with its peacekeeping role, as well as incompatible with the principles of peaceful conflict resolution set out in the Helsinki Final Act, the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the Rome Declaration.”

“NATO Statement – 19 August, 2008”

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_29950.htm

For several months, NATO froze high-level talks with Russia, although some members, including Germany and France, were keen for them to resume.

According to a BBC report in March 2009, after an announcement of resumption of talks, “Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's permanent envoy to Nato, predicted an outcome of the Brussels talks "that should, on the whole, satisfy Russia" but made clear he saw Moscow negotiating from a position of strength.

"We came out of the crisis that we had after the August 2008 events [the war with Georgia], the crisis in the South Caucasus, stronger," he told Russian channel Vesti TV.

"Our Western colleagues saw in Russia a partner that one cannot wipe one's feet on. We are strong... and we are restoring cooperation, including on our terms."

“Nato woos Russia on Afghanistan”, BBC, 5 March 2009,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7925944.stm

Russia's increasingly assertive approach was also evident when on 29 November 2009 President Medvedev published a draft for a new European security treaty as an alternative to NATO structures. NATO responded that the existing Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was the place to discuss security issues.

See:

“Russian doctrine does not reflect real world: NATO”, Reuters, David Brunnstrom, 6 February, 2010

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6150NI20100206

STRATFOR saw “Russian moves” as a means to “slowly erode Europe’s confidence in NATO and to begin to introduce the idea of Russia as a security partner for Europe.”

“Russia's Strategy Behind the European Security Treaty”, STRATFOR, October 7, 2010

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101007_russia_strategy_behind_european_security_treaty

Political analyst Vladimir Socor wrote that Russia is seeking “to disorganize and fragment the NATO alliance, insert Moscow into NATO’s decision-making arrangements, and build a Russian sphere of predominant influence at the same time.”

"Russian President Medvedev Submits Draft Treaty on European Security Architecture”,

Jamestown Foundation, Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 224

December 7, 2009, Vladimir Socor

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35808

“THE FUTURE OF RUSSIA LIES WITHIN COOPERATION WITH EU AND NATO” -

NATO CHIEF ANDERS RASMUSSEN'S STATEMENTS ON RUSSIA'S PARTNERSHIP WITH NATO AND EUROPE


Russia is steadily moving towards playing a leading military role in Europe and the world. With the NATO-Russia summit (20 November, 2010) taking place during the NATO summit in Lisbon (19-20 November), focus will be on Russia's role in European and global security. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who assumed office on 1 August 2009, has said of the summit “It will be one of the most important in NATO's history.”

Mr Rasmussen is also Chairman of the NATO-Russia Council, the body where he says “the 28 NATO countries and Russia sit together, as 29 equal states, to discuss common security challenges, and to see what they can do together to solve them.”

In a speech on 17 December, 2009, at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations, entitled “NATO and Russia, partners for the future”, Mr Rasmussen said: “I think that a trusting relationship between these 29 countries has enormous potential to make Russia safer, to make the NATO Allies safer, and to make a real contribution to global security as well.”

Some are concerned however, that an “undivided continent” that includes Russia could bring a less than favourable outcome for the US and the UK, whose population is currently divided in opinion regarding benefits of its own EU membership and still wants a referendum on EU membership.

Since taking up the post of NATO Secretary General in August 2009, a year after the 2008 Russia-Georgia conflict strained NATO-Russia relations, former Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen has made establishing good relations with Russia a priority, viewing Russia as “a partner of strategic importance”.

An entry on Mr Rasmussen's Facebook page states: “The future of Russia lies within cooperation with EU and NATO.”

The NATO chief and chairman of the NATO-Russia council believes that “building missile defense in a way that includes Russia would help create the true European security architecture we would all like to see.”

During a speech in the German Bundestag on 22 October, 2010 Mr Rasmussen said:

“I hope that, at our summit in Lisbon, NATO Heads of State and Government will take the decision, as an Alliance, to build the capability to protect European populations and territory against missile attack. And I also hope that such a decision will go together with a clear offer to Russia to cooperate and to benefit.

Allied and Russian participation in a territorial missile defence system would create a true Euro-Atlantic security architecture. It would provide one security roof across Europe. It would be a major step in achieving our goal of a genuine strategic partnership between NATO and Russia. And it would be a further, powerful demonstration that cooperative security is the key for building peace and stability on this continent.”

Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the German Bundestag, 22 October, 2010 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_67304.htm

On 2 November, 2010 ahead of his visit to Moscow in preparation for the NATO-Russia Summit in Lisbon, Mr Rasmussen wrote on Facebook:

“Time has come for a fresh start in NATO-Russia relations and I'm pleased President Medvedev accepted my invitation to the NATO Summit in Lisbon. The clear message to the Russian people is that NATO does not see Russia as an enemy, but as a partner of strategic importance. Together we can make the world safer on the basis of trust, confidence and reciprocity.”

Included in this partnership are operations in Afghanistan. According to Newsweek, 7 November, 2010, a plan to get Russia back into Afghanistan has been “championed” by Mr Rasmussen”.

The plan “would have Moscow provide helicopters to Afghan and NATO forces, train Afghan national-security forces, and assist in counternarcotics programs and border security. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev expects to sign the deal at a NATO summit in Lisbon later this month.”

The Newsweek article continues: “The summit can mark a new start,” says Rasmussen.

“But this new start comes at a hefty price: Moscow stands to gain far more than the West. In return for its help, Moscow wants restrictions on deployment of any NATO force larger than a 3,000-strong brigade anywhere in the former Soviet bloc. There would also be limits on aircraft deployments in Eastern Europe, and, most controversially, Russia has demanded veto power on any large additional Western military deployments anywhere in Central Europe, the Balkans, or the Baltics. Taken together, NATO’s concessions would constitute a significant shoring up by Medvedev of Russia’s “near abroad.””


Newsweek, Owen Matthews, 7 November, 2010 http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/07/a-return-engagement-for-russia.html

During a joint press conference in Moscow with Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov on 3rd November, 2010 Mr Rasmussen said:

“Let's do some exercise testing our respective capabilities. This theater missile defense which aims at protecting our deployed troops can be expanded to a territorial missile defense to protect the whole of our population and that's what we’re going to decide at the NATO summit in Lisbon. And we would very much like to co-operate with Russia also when it comes also to territorial missile defense.”

Russia is increasingly being brought into playing a major military role in both European and world affairs.

JOINT RUSSIA-EU-NATO MILITARY CO-OPERATION ENVISIONED AS BINDING TOGETHER POLITICALLY

Following Mr Medvedev's November 2009 draft security treaty proposal, Nato Secretary general and chairman of the NATO-Russia Council, Anders Fogh Rasmussen told a news briefing in Moscow: "I don't see a need for new treaties or new legally binding documents because we do have a framework already."

However, in a December 2009 address to the Moscow State Institute for International Relations, Mr Rasmuseen did envision a common missile defense that not only provides joint security, but binds together politically.

He spoke of his vision that in 2020 ”NATO-Russia security cooperation will at that time be an established feature of the international security landscape. We will share intelligence and work together in combating terrorism and drug-trafficking. “Our navies will cooperate closely in fighting piracy at sea. And Russian soldiers will be deployed alongside NATO soldiers in UN-mandated peacekeeping operations.

“I also believe that, by 2020, cooperation between NATO and Russia on missile defence will have advanced to the point where we are able to link our systems to create a genuine missile shield in the Euro-Atlantic area. Which will not only protect us all against proliferation, but bind us together politically as well.”

“NATO and Russia, partners for the future” Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Moscow State Institute for International Relations, 17 December, 2009 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_60223.htm

On 8 October, 2010 Mr Rasmussen stated in Brussels:

“I would expect the NATO Summit in November to take the decision that we will develop a NATO-based missile defence system which can cover the whole of our territory and protect our populations by linking the existing U.S. system with existing European systems that are prepared to protect our deployed troops. But why only protect our deployed troops? Why not expand it to cover the whole population? And that's what it is about. It's technically feasible, by linking these systems together we can provide protection for all citizens in NATO countries.

If we take that decision I think it should also be accompanied by an invitation to Russia to cooperate. It makes sense militarily because it would give the whole system better coverage, make it more efficient and it would make sense politically because it would be clear to everybody that his missile defence system is not directed against Russia, it is really a common defence system.

And that would be a Euro-Atlantic security architecture in the real world that matters to people, the man in the street. I mean, it would be a security roof from Vancouver to Vladivostok. I mean it doesn't give people security to write a treaty, but it gives people security to protect against hostile missiles.

So I'm not against a common security architecture, but I focus on what really matters in the real world, and not on documents and treaties.

As regards NATO and the European Union, I would very much like to see a strengthened partnership. Twenty-one countries are members of both organization, so it's a bit strange that there is still a lack of cooperation when it comes to operations, in theatres where we operate together.

When it comes to development of capabilities there's a clear risk that each organization pursues its own programs instead of merging programs or instead of coordinating programs.”

“The New Strategic Concept: Active Engagement, Modern Defence”,

Speech by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), Brussels, 8 October, 2010

NATO website: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_66727.htm

Security co-operation is a major step towards political co-operation in Europe. But with a merging of operations between NATO and the EU and Russia, we could see the US and UK, two of the founding members of NATO - originally founded to limit Soviet influence in Europe - increasingly lose influence on the world's stage militarily and politically. (US and UK economic prestige has already declined since the financial crisis.)

Although in recent years some in leadership positions in the US, UK as well as other NATO countries have adopted the view that Russia is “not a threat”, “not an enemy” but “a strategic partner” and wish to press the “reset button”, NATO founding members such as the US, UK, Denmark and Canada should at least be prepared to consider that under a future leadership, a Russia that is militarily and politically merged with Europe - including Germany - could perhaps become “an enemy” and could, as NATO said of Russia's actions in 2008, begin to use force that is “disproportionate and inconsistent with its peacekeeping role” or other “principles of peaceful resolution”.

RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP HAS LONG WANTED A COMMON DEFENSE SYSTEM IN EUROPE (2000) – AND MEMBERSHIP OF NATO (1991)

While a way is being paved towards a future strong Russian military leadership in Europe, in the past both a common European security and becoming part of NATO have been suggested by Russian leaders themselves who consider Russia as part of Europe.

In 2008, after assuming office the previous month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev spoke of Russia as “a part of Europe” in an interview with Reuters saying that there “is a relationship between the Russian Federation as a major European state, a country that identifies itself and is aware of itself as a part of Europe, and the European Union as the community bringing together a large number of Europe’s countries.”

President of Russia Official Web Portal: Interview with Reuters News Agency

Recorded on June 23, 2008 in Moscow - http://archive.kremlin.ru/eng/text/speeches/2008/06/25/2050_type82916_203066.shtml

While President Medvedev proposed a common defense system in 2008, President Putin had first promoted the idea of a joint missile defense system in Europe to both U.S. and European leaders in 2000. (At the time, analysts warned such as system would be contrary to U.S. interests.)

According to the New York Times in 2000, after meeting with President Clinton, Vladimir Putin “came to Rome today to sell Europe - and the Vatican - on a Russian alternative to the United States missile defense proposal.”

“The two-day trip was timed to follow his somewhat tense discussions with Mr. Clinton about altering the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. And it was choreographed to put Mr. Putin's heightened sense of Russian power on display.”....

"Russia proposed working with Europe and NATO to create an anti-rocket defense system for Europe," Mr. Putin told reporters after meeting with Mr. Amato. ''On one hand, it would avoid all the problems linked to the balance of force. On the other, it would permit in an absolute manner a 100 percent guarantee of the security of every European country.''

“Putin Travels to Rome to Promote Russian Arms Control Alternative”, New York Times, Alessandra Stanley, 6 June, 2000

See also: “U.S.-Russia Missile Defense Tensions and Russian Military Resurgence”, Global Politician, Lorna Thomas, 20 May, 2008 - http://www.globalpolitician.com/24770-russia-military

In March 2001 during an interview with the BBC's David Frost, Mr Putin viewed NATO membership for Russia as a possibility – but only if Russia was “an equal partner”.

“Russia is a part of European culture. I simply cannot see my country isolated from Europe, from what we often describe as the civilized world. That is why it is hard for me to regard NATO as an enemy. I think that such a perception has nothing good in store for Russia and the rest of the world. ...

We strive for equal cooperation, partnership, we believe that it is possible to speak even about higher levels of integration with NATO. But only, I repeat, if Russia is an equal partner.”

Interview with David Frost, "Breakfast with Frost" BBC, March 2000

(It is of note that according to a 1991 Reuters report in a letter read out at a meeting between NATO and Warsaw pact countries, Vladimir Putin's predecessor, President Boris Yeltsin had written to NATO “saying Russia hoped to join the alliance some time in the future.”)

“Soviet disarray; Yeltsin Says Russia Seeks to Join NATO”, New York Times, Thomas L. Friedman, December 21, 1991 - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEED61731F932A15751C1A967958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Belgian Foreign Minister, Mark Eyskens, was quoted then as saying regarding the possibility of admitting Russia: "If you do it for Russia, you also have to do it for the other republics. For NATO, there is a danger of dilution."

In 2010, Russia's closer involvement with NATO and the EU cannot fail to bring changes and to make a deep impact on Europe and the world - especially at a time that US and UK prestige and influence in the world is diminishing.

AS THE UK AND US DECLINE IN PRESTIGE AND POWER, A STRENGTHENING EUROPE, INCLUDING RUSSIA

While Russia's military influence in the world may be increasing, financial cuts have affected British defense spending, including personnel, tank, heavy artillery, aircraft carriers, jets and the ability to launch its own fighter jets at sea for a decade.

On 19 October British Prime Minister David Cameron's announced defense cuts and on 2 November 2010 signed two treaties on defense co-operation with France, viewed by some with concern regarding Britain's ability to act independently in the world.

Regarding Britain's NATO involvement, Mr Rasmussen told BBC 1's Politics Show the cuts were a “"matter for concern but I'm convinced that the UK will fully live up to her commitments in our alliance".”

"As secretary general of NATO, I would urge allies to co-operate, to pool resources together, to go for collective solutions, because we could achieve economies of scale and make more efficient use of our resources if we pool resources together."

“Nato head Rasmussen 'concerned' over UK defence cuts”, 7 November 2010 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11706423

Following a visit to Downing Street, on 4 November, 2010 Mr Rasmussen wrote on Facebook “after my talks in Moscow I'm even more convinced that the NATO Summit in Lisbon where Russia will participate will be a real opportunity to turn a page, to bury once and for all the ghosts of the past. We share common security challenges. Together we can create one security roof by linking our missile defence systems and give our populations real security against missile threats.”

Yet should the “ghosts of the past” be buried if they could come back to haunt the future? Or the lessons of history forgotten? Unless the lessons of history are learnt, they are apt to be repeated.

As Russia's closer co-operation and involvement in European security is welcomed and past and present leaders' goals of a common European security including Russia and/or membership of NATO appear well on their way to becoming a reality, Russia is moving closer to assuming a leading military role both in Europe and in the world. As such, Britain and the US could ultimately come to deeply regret their own increasingly diminishing influential and independent roles in the world.

If, during the Georgia conflict many, including NATO, were taken aback to see Russia's forceful role of “peacekeeper”, are they prepared to see Russia playing a future role of “peacekeeper” both in Europe and the world?

While God is a mighty God, and the Rock and the true Defense of a nation (Deut 32), we should remember that history shows us that promises of peace and safety may easily be made by men, but may also be broken, and may instead herald a time of destruction. (see 1 Thes 5:3)

One of the lessons that can also be learnt from the history of ancient Israel is that God promised them blessings, including protection against enemies - even when militarily outnumbered - if they obeyed Him.

However, if they forgot and forsook Him, refusing to obey Him and His Laws, as well as provoking Him to jealousy and anger by going after other gods and their customs, including the worship of idols, if they did not heed the warnings including those set out in Lev 26 and Deut 28 and Deut 32, He would bring punishments upon them, pleading with them to return to Him. Such punishments included using their enemies to punish them. If they did not heed, they would be finally delivered into captivity.

(It is of note that while God would use the enemies of Israel to punish them when they forgot and forsook Him and followed the gods of the nations around them, the Bible also shows that God held them accountable for their own deeds and they would eventually be judged and held accountable by God for their own deeds. (see Isa 10))

God shows that if a nation were to turn to Him wholeheartedly and change their ways, He would forgive and not bring the punishment on them.

At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;

If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. (Jer 18:8-10)

Because God's standards of right and wrong do not change, as the US and UK, nations that profess to worship the God of the Bible, see their power and prestige decreasing, in the face of an increasingly assertive Russia that will be closely aligned with Germany in Europe, they cannot afford to ignore the warnings given in the Bible to ancient Israel. (Lev 26, Deut 28, Deut 30, Deut 32)