Russia (bbabo.net), - In order to correctly assess this or that complex problem in international relations, and even more so to try to solve it - if, of course, there is such a desire - it is necessary first of all to have all the completeness of objective information, including both the background of the problem and possible options for its development in the future. On this basis, a foreign policy position is developed, and within the framework of this position, specific actions are taken, taking into account the possible reaction of other players in world politics.
Recently, discussions have been in full swing in the Russian and world media, in the expert community about Russia's relations with NATO, on numerous security issues in the Euro-Atlantic space. What can you not hear! And the fact that Russia has officially raised the issue of joining the North Atlantic bloc. And that there were agreements - either verbal or some other - on the non-expansion of the bloc in an easterly direction. And many many others.
From 1994 to 1998 I was First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, and from 1998 to 2004 - Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have some information about those aspects of Russia's relations with NATO, which were within my competence, I have. And I would like to share some facts that, it seems to me, are directly related to the current situation between Moscow and Brussels.
First, I am not aware that Russia has ever formally applied to Brussels with a request to join NATO. Maybe someone and led conversations on this subject in a personal capacity, but no more.
Secondly, since the end of the Cold War, Russia has always resolutely opposed NATO expansion, especially in an easterly direction. The Russian argumentation has been well known for a long time - the Russian representatives have stated this argumentation many times at all levels, at all negotiations, at all meetings.
When NATO decided on the "first wave" of the bloc's expansion (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic), in Moscow this step of the North Atlantic Alliance became the subject of serious discussions with the participation of interested ministries and departments. Without going into the details of these discussions, it can be noted that the arsenal of the Russian side turned out to be not so many options for responding to expansion. It was necessary either to conduct a complex political struggle in order to convince the Western states of the advantages of the unique opportunity that was then opening up for everyone to build a common security space in Europe without dividing lines, or to give preference to a policy of harsh ultimatums and unilateral measures with an emphasis on military-technical means of responding to undesirable for Russia block actions.
I well remember our long meetings with Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov, the result of which was the choice in favor of the political and diplomatic option. According to the general opinion, Russia at that moment was not ready for the military-technical version of the answer either in political, economic or military terms, and an attempt to implement it could have the most serious consequences for the country, which was then experiencing a deep internal political and social crisis.
The essence of Russia's then agreed position was that, in parallel with the process of NATO expansion, which Russia could not stop at that time, to launch a negotiation process on the creation of a new European security architecture, which in the future could replace the military-political confrontation in the Euro-Atlantic space that took shape during the Cold War. The result of such negotiations was the signing in Paris on May 27, 1997 of the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between Russia and NATO. In passing, I note that to date, none of the parties has declared its desire to withdraw from this agreement, reached almost a quarter of a century ago.
At the same time, active negotiations were conducted with the aim of adapting the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) concluded in Paris in 1990 to the new realities that had developed in Europe after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact Organization. The adapted CFE Treaty was signed in Istanbul in November 1999 during the OSCE summit. The Charter for European Security was also signed there. All these documents, which actually recognized the new military-political reality that has developed in Europe, created a legal basis for the start of meaningful negotiations on the formation of a "model of common and comprehensive security for Europe in the 21st century" based on the principle of "indivisibility of the security of all Euro-Atlantic states". communities".
Russia condemned NATO's illegal aggression in Yugoslavia in the strongest possible terms. Our country has made great efforts to stop this aggressionIn 1998, the NATO bloc committed an act of aggression against Yugoslavia. This was NATO's first unequivocal bid for the role of world policeman, which was to reinforce the course taken by the United States to impose a unipolar model on the world, in which Washington and its allies could decide the fate of the world and other peoples at their own discretion.
NATO aggression in Yugoslavia dealt a heavy blow to Russia's relations with the North Atlantic Alliance, all contacts between Moscow and Brussels were interrupted for some time. A massive wave of demonstrations swept through many capitals of Europe, the participants of which condemned the bloc's military actions and demanded an end to the senseless bombing of Yugoslav cities. In the end, the war was stopped, and the international authority of NATO was seriously undermined.
Russia condemned in the strongest possible terms NATO's illegal aggression in Yugoslavia. Our country has made great efforts to stop this aggression and reach a political settlement of the conflict.
Against this background, contacts between Russia and NATO have resumed with the aim of developing the foundations for further interaction between the parties in the interests of European security. On May 22, 2002, in Rome, the leaders of Russia and 19 NATO member states signed a declaration that was supposed to "open a new page" in relations with the aim of strengthening cooperation in order to jointly confront common security threats and risks. The Russia-NATO Council was established for consultations and joint action on a wide range of security issues in the Euro-Atlantic region. The Council, which included both political and military structures, was supposed to become "the main place for applying efforts for the progressive development of relations between Russia and NATO." There were hopes that the council would become a platform for discussing and agreeing on all issues of European security that could in one way or another affect the fundamental interests of both the NATO countries and Russia.
The stated facts are only a general outline within which relations between Russia and NATO developed in the 1990s and at the beginning of this century. I can state with full responsibility that during these years Russia did not take any actions that would threaten or could be interpreted as a threat to the security interests of the United States and its allies in Europe. On the contrary, Russia has been invariably open to cooperation with Western partners, which, in particular, it demonstrated after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.
Unfortunately, in the Western capitals, such a constructive line of Moscow was, apparently, perceived as a sign of weakness. Without any intelligible explanation, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, in 2003, together with its allies, unleashed a bloody war in Iraq, and expanded provocative actions along the perimeter of Russian borders. Russian representatives constantly pointed to all these facts, calling on Western partners for a constructive dialogue.
We have to admit that the constructive policy of Russia did not get the proper reaction, which required Moscow to take the necessary measures to ensure the country's security. Russian President Vladimir Putin frankly spoke about all this speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 10, 2007. History cannot be written from the date from which it is profitable for you. Western experts often try to present things in such a way that all the problems in relations between Russia and NATO began only after the military conflict in South Ossetia in 2008 and the political crisis in Ukraine in 2014.
I can say with good reason that if these events had not been preceded by a deliberate policy of the United States and its allies to destroy the fragile foundations of relations between Russia and NATO, conflicts in the South Caucasus and around Ukraine could have been avoided, or at least could have been prevent them from entering the military phase. The United States and Europe are well aware that it was not Russia that provoked these conflicts, that in both the first and second cases, they tried to present Russia with a fait accompli, causing serious damage to its security interests. As a result of the short-sighted policies of Washington and US allies, Europe is now facing the most acute and dangerous security crisis in decades. And Russia again found itself faced with the same question that it already faced in the mid-1990s: how to respond to the aggressive and completely one-sided policy of NATO. The choice of options, as it was almost three decades ago, unfortunately, is still small: one has to choose between political-diplomatic and military-technical responses.
If there is an intention to fight for a long-term security system in Europe, then political agreements are needed to create itI do not consider myself entitled to give specific advice - especially since I do not have all the information necessary for this. I understand very well that critics of the politico-diplomatic way of settlement can reasonably say that the previous experience of such attempts failed and that only the strong are listened to in the West. There is no point in arguing with such arguments. At the same time, logic suggests that if there is an intention to fight for a long-term security system in Europe, then political agreements are needed to create it. It will be difficult to achieve such agreements in the near future. The situation in Europe is now even more complicated than it was in the 1990s, and much needs to be started from scratch. Mutual distrust and suspicion, the inertia of confrontation, cannot be quickly overcome. But nothing is impossible if there is the political will to move forward, thinking not about momentary benefits, but about long-term interests. Russia's negotiating positions are stronger today than they were 30 years ago, unlike in the 1990s, the country has what it needs to ensure its security. It would be better for everyone if Russia's national security eventually becomes an integral part of the comprehensive security of Europe in the 21st century.
Russia is carefully analyzing the written responses received on January 26 from the United States and NATO to its proposals on security guarantees, but it is already clear that Moscow's fundamental concerns are ignored in them. This was stated by Russian President Vladimir Putin at a joint press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. According to the head of the Russian state, the responses from the Americans and NATO did not take into account three of our key demands. They concern the prevention of further expansion of the alliance, the refusal to deploy strike weapons systems near Russian borders, as well as the return of the bloc's military infrastructure in Europe to the state of 1997, when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed. The Americans withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, although the Russian side persuaded them not to do so. "And now missile defense launchers are located in Romania and are being created in Poland, they will probably be soon, if they haven't done so yet. And there are MK-41 launchers on which Tomahawks can be installed. That is, this is no longer an anti-missile, but shock systems that will cover our territory for thousands of kilometers. Isn't that a threat to us?" - said the head of the Russian Federation.
At the next stage, talk began about the need to accept Ukraine into the ranks of NATO. At the same time, "it is written in the doctrinal documents of Ukraine itself that they are going to return Crimea, including by military means." Vladimir Putin suggested imagining what will happen in this situation: the country is "stuffed with weapons", "there are modern strike systems, just like in Poland and Romania", and now - and there is no one to prevent this - it "starts operations in the Crimea", which is known to be sovereign Russian territory. "The question is closed for us in this sense. Let's imagine that Ukraine is a NATO country and starts these military operations. Should we fight with the NATO bloc? Has anyone thought about this at least something? It seems that not," Putin admitted .
"It seems to me that the same United States is not so much concerned about the security of Ukraine, although they may be thinking about it, but somewhere in the background, but their main task is to curb the development of Russia. That's the point. In this sense, Ukraine itself is just a tool to achieve this goal.This can be done in different ways.By drawing us into some kind of armed conflict and forcing its allies in Europe, among other things, to impose the very tough sanctions against us that the United States is talking about today.Or draw Ukraine into NATO, set up strike weapon systems there and encourage some Bandera people to resolve the issue of Donbass or Crimea by force. And thus still drag us into an armed conflict," the Russian president explained.
About how relations between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance developed at different times and how realistic it is to agree with NATO on common security principles, see an article by former Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.
bbabo.Net