The issue of double standards was perhaps central to all the discussions at the informal summit. Whether it was the war on terror, or who should be considered terrorists and their accomplices, or why the NATO operation in Afghanistan is still unable to bring calm to the country and stop the transit of drugs to Central Asian countries and from there to Russia and Europe, and many other things.
Experts noted that Russia can agree and find a common language most easily with the US, France, Germany and Italy, rather than with the newly admitted states. The impression is, one participant told RIA Novosti, that some "younger" members of the alliance, especially the Baltic states, cannot overcome the "anti-Russian inferiority complex" and are making every possible effort to drive a wedge between Moscow and Brussels, and disrupt cooperation between leading countries. The most exasperating thing is that none of the "senior comrades" pulls them up or tries to push them towards a real partnership. And without this, regardless of the organization involved, it is impossible to combat 21st century challenges that threaten us all.
Generally speaking, the partnership between Russia and NATO is like a zebra: it has alternating light and dark stripes, but it is not very clear which color predominates. It may be noted that mistrust of each other is not diminishing, and attempts to find a kind of hidden meaning in some proposals and projects, are, unfortunately, continuing.
For example, any involvement of Russian warships in the Active Endeavor anti-terrorist operation runs counter to Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which prohibits the participation of non-NATO forces in such operations. A question arises: on what legal grounds did Russia's navy find itself among NATO ships? Another point is: on what legal grounds can representatives of the operation's command board Russian vessels to check their readiness for joint maneuvers? Any warship, according to the laws of any state, is considered to be the sovereign territory of that state, and a visitor needs special permission from the government concerned. Such permission is not forthcoming. And the last question: who will pay for the Russian sailors' Mediterranean voyage? If the operation drags on, the Black Sea Fleet, which seconded its ships to it, will use up its budget buying fresh water, fuel, oil, and food for sailors, and paying them for their difficult duties.
But those, by most reckoning, are technicalities that are not hard to harmonize. There are sharper contradictions between the partners, which have defied any solution for several months. For example, take the problem of military transit via Russia and the territories of NATO states. It is common knowledge that Moscow has opened its skies to French and German military cargoes, including troops flying to and from Afghanistan. At the same time, the governments of Lithuania and Latvia prevent Russian aircraft flying over their countries to and from the Kaliningrad region. Brussels pretends that this is not its problem, and that it is an issue for bilateral relations between the Kremlin, Vilnius and Riga. This, Moscow believes, does not do any the credit of the alliance's leadership. The point is that Latvia refuses Russia military transit under the pretext that it is a "NATO member". Should one cry or laugh over such an absurd argument?
Moscow is also surprised at other claims voiced by some NATO countries, in particular, Romania. It has expressed concern over the presence of Russian troops in Transdniester and is raising the question of their withdrawal according to the accords reached at the 1999 NATO-Russia summit in Istanbul. But it is widely known that last year Russia proposed making the territory of Transdniester and Moldova a demilitarized zone free of any weapons and military units of the two conflicting sides. A draft agreement was in fact signed by Kiev, Moscow and Tiraspol. At the last moment President Vladimir Voronin of Moldova withdrew his signature under OSCE pressure. Who, it is asked, should now bear responsibility for the presence of Russian arms in Transdniester? This is a rhetorical question, and one not addressed to the leadership of Russia.
Russian troops, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said, will stay in Transdniester for as long as necessary, until all stores of the former 14th army are withdrawn. These are thousands of carloads of shells and other armaments, which are impossible to leave unattended. This is all the more true given that the leadership of the unrecognized republic refuses to allow Moscow to remove them without appropriate guarantees for its security and other legal agreements whose conclusion is being resisted elsewhere, but not in Moscow.
On the other hand, Mr. Ivanov asked, if Romania is so concerned about the presence of Russian peacekeepers in Transdniester, why should the alliance be planning new bases near Bucharest and Sofia? What real danger will they be acting against? Russia wonders. What terrorist organizations are located near these borders and where? In the NATO member country Turkey?
