Speaking at the Transatlantic Bond Project Conference in Brussels on Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stressed the importance of a strong relationship between Europe and North America to address current security risks and threats. What does the strong relationship mean for Europe? And where is NATO taking its members?
Radio VR talks to Evgeny Buzhinsky, first vice-president of PIR Center, Lieutenant-General, and Dr Azriel Bermant, a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Israel.
To foster the Alliance its leaders are placing additional restrictions on its European members. The policy experts' report to the NATO Secretary General, dated June 2014, says NATO members should not trade their core commitment to collective defence in return for national economic benefits or international cooperation with Russia…
"It is a normal report of the group of NATO experts", Evgeny Buzhinsky, first vice-president of PIR Center, Lieutenant-General (rtrd), says. "The aim of which is to remind, first of all, the European governments and the European public that NATO is still alive and needs strengthening. So, the key sentence following the withdrawal from Afghanistan is that NATO needs to reaffirm its value around twin objectives of collective defense and common security. And the gist of this sentence is – Europeans, you should pay more.
And are the Europeans prepared to pay more?
I don't think so, because the threats which are listed in this report, in my opinion, are artificial. Russia is not a threat, although the whole chapter is devoted to the Russian aggressive policy or cohesion by Russia of its neighbours. The Russia's domination in the Eurasian Union is described here, although NATO, as a US-dominated alliance, is not mentioned. NATO is a free group of democratic nations.
So, in my mind, it is a normal report to make the European allies pay more. Moreover, it is clearly said in the report that the Europeans should pay not only for the European security, but also for strengthening positions of the US in the Asia-Pacific.
The fact that the Europeans are really made to pay for the US's pivot to Asia doesn't look fair. But the question is – whether the Europeans are buying that?
Of course not. And I don't think they will buy it. But you see, the group of experts' report is, as we call it, a targeted report. I'm sure it was made at the request of the US authorities. You know that in September the next summit of the NATO will be held in Wales. So, it is just one of the preparatory steps for that summit.
And where those steps are going to take NATO? As far as I understand, the experts are recommending to limit the cooperation between Russia and NATO. Is NATO really in a position to afford limiting cooperation with Russia?
It says there can be no return to a strategic partnership. First of all, I don't understand what the authors of the report meant using the term 'strategic'. In my assessment our Russia-NATO partnership was never strategic. It was normal partnership, but as for strategic and geopolitical aspirations of NATO and Russia, they very rarely coincided, in only a couple of cases – antiterrorism, nonproliferation and that is all. All the rest – Yugoslavia, the Arab Spring, Ukraine – we are not on the same side.
When they insist that Moscow should do something to stop the aggression and violence in Ukraine, is there anything that Russia is still in a position to do without violating the international law?
It is arguable about the violation of the international law. It is more than once mentioned here – the Paris Chapter, the Helsinki Final Act – but who started violating the Helsinki Final Act? It seems to me that Yugoslavia was the first case. And it is also arguable about the annexation of Crimea and who annexed Crimea. In 1991 there was a referendum in Crimea and, if my memory doesn't fail me, more than 90% voted against joining independent Ukraine. The referendum was ignored. So, about the international law, it is arguable.
Well, my point is that NATO members are trying to provoke Russia, make it do something which could be used then as a pretext to act more decisively for NATO forces. What can Russia do not to give them this kind of pretext?
I think that now it is clear that Russia is not going to interfere militarily into the actual civil war in Ukraine. Russia wants the situation to be settled peacefully and diplomatically. I do hope that the newly elected President Poroshenko will keep to his words and stop the military operation, although today it is clear that he is not in full control of the forces which are actually waging war against the population in the southeast of Ukraine.
But this man has pronounced so many words and quite contradictory, too. He was even saying something about getting Crimea back, which implies - war.
It is wishful thinking. Of course, he may say whatever he wants, but Crimea, now it is clear to everybody in the world, is part of Russia. It seems to me and not only to me that, of course, the Western countries, NATO will not recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation for some time. The US did not recognize Baltic republics as part of the USSR for 40 years. So what? We lived, we cooperated, did treaties, normal life. I think that the Crimea issue is settled. As for the Donetsk and Lugansk, I do hope that the situation will be settled there peacefully.
Look, if you are speaking about NATO, it is a fully US-dominated alliance. So, all the talk about the equality, democracy, it is good but it is not real.
But like you started the interview – NATO is now trying to show that it is still alive and it needs to be supported. So, doesn't it actually point to some kind of systemic crisis in that organization?
The systemic crisis of the organization started 20 years ago, when the European countries after the Cold War was over clearly saw that there is no immediate military threat to their security and started decreasing their military expenditures. And now it is a very good reason for the US administration to remind its allies that they should spend more.
In that situation, could NATO see another war as a way out?
Well, when we speak about NATO and a war of NATO, and let's say a NATO base, me personally, I don't understand this terminology. Because all wars waged under the flag of NATO are the US wars. All bases under the flag of NATO are the US bases in Europe. And I'm sure that two consecutive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are quite enough for the US for the time being. They are not going to start a new one".
But then, there is another question: where is NATO headed? What are its real goals in the current situation in Ukraine, Afghanistan and, perhaps, the Pacific?
Dr Azriel Bermant, a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies in Israel:
This is a great question just two or three months before NATO has its big summit in September. At the moment you have the widespread view that the crisis in Ukraine has suddenly made NATO relevant again, which was searching for a role. After the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, certainly, people were saying – is NATO still necessary, does it have a role. It did have with the troops in Afghanistan. That certainly has given NATO a role.
But beyond that there is a question being asked of what is NATO for? And suddenly you have this explosion at the end of 2013, the beginning of 2014 in Ukraine, and you have this view that suddenly NATO has a purpose once again. People are talking about a new Cold War. And now there is a view that NATO has a purpose. But the question is – what this purpose is?
When you have such a large organization (we see the same problem with the EU), there is bound to be a certain amount of discord, of the lack of unity, because you have countries, such as Poland and the Baltic states, which understandably do feel in the wake of the annexation of Crimea that they could be next in the firing line. They've been waiting for the NATO troops and for the US's commitment to their security.
But then, you have other countries, like France, which continue to have a relatively strong relationship with Russia and are about to sell Russia military equipments. And Poland is not very happy about that. So, you've got strong divisions.
There is a problem in terms of expenditure, you know, the US has been grumbling about the fact that certain countries are not contributing enough, that there is a lack of expenditure, that NATO cannot operate properly if there is no willingness by those countries themselves, that are facing the threat, to do their bets, to step up to the plate.
Once the new President is able to make more and after Russia realizes that the tensions in eastern Ukraine is something that it cannot easily control, and also with the various sanctions that have been implemented by the EU, this may come to a point where all the sides have to say – okay, maybe we need to sort of keep a lid on things. I think that there may come a point where NATO and Russia will eventually renew cooperation, but I don't see that in the near future.
Do you think we could have an answer like 'yes' or 'no' to a question – is NATO still viewing Russia as its adversary?
First of all, the NATO's very establishment was originally due to confronting and containing the Soviet Union. But of course, after the Cold War suddenly Russia was viewed almost, I would say as an ally, but you had NATO-Russia council, you had the recognition as a country that cooperation could be established with.
Today things seem to be reverted to the, I wouldn't say it is as it was back during the Cold War, but Russia is viewed as a threat, particularly by countries such as Poland and the Baltic states. But it is important to add that NATO sees other threats beyond the Euroatlantic area. For example, Iran is one such threat, which is why it is active, which why there is a missile defense system established in Europe.
So, is Russia an adversary? On a certain level it is, but you have to distinguish between various countries within NATO, some of which have good trading relationship with Russia. So, that is the situation at the moment".
