Eurasia Press & News
The NATO 2030 report, presented in early December in Brussels, recognizes Russia as the main threat of the coming decade. The alliance is shifting to a Cold War-style containment strategy. Military observer Alexander Golts believes that the unity of the West is especially evident against the background of the CSTO created by Russia, where each participant ritually bows to Putin, but is not ready for confrontation with the Kremlin’s opponents.
It is not customary to declare war these days. Their beginning is marked by missile launches, air and artillery strikes. But the beginning of the Cold War is marked by lengthy declarations (remember Winston Churchill’s Fulton speech). Russia tried not to pay too much attention to the report “NATO 2030. Unity in a New Era” recently presented in Brussels. The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in two scathing paragraphs emphasized only the thoughtlessness of NATO experts who do not want to notice Moscow’s desire for cooperation and justify Brussels’ Russophobia. As is usual with Russian foreign policy officials, it followed from the words of Maria Zakharova that this Russophobia gripped NATO members out of the blue, for no apparent reason. As if there was neither annexation of Crimea nor a “secret” war in Donbass
Meanwhile, this report is more than a reason for Philip Zakharova’s anger. A year ago, during a summit in London, the heads of NATO member states instructed Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to begin analyzing the prospects for the development of the alliance. At the end of March 2020, he created a group of several well-known experts, headed by former German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière and Wess Mitchell, former US Deputy Secretary of State. And so in early December, during a meeting of the alliance’s foreign ministers, a presentation of a report prepared by experts took place. The speech of the NATO Secretary General left no doubt that he fully agrees with the conclusions. And, therefore, in the not too distant future, his theses will become the basis for NATO policy documents. The report, as is typical for such documents, covers a wide range of issues: the future threat that China may pose, the ongoing war on terrorism, control over disruptive technologies, and respect for civil rights.
For us, the main thing is that this document records a fundamentally changed attitude towards Russia. The report states that the NATO Strategic Concept, adopted in 2010 and still in force today, clearly does not meet the changing situation in the world. One of its main goals was to establish strategic partnership relations with Moscow. After the events of 2014, this looks like a strange anachronism. Experts state:
Russia’s aggression against Georgia and Ukraine, accompanied by its continued military buildup and aggressive activity in the Baltic and Black Sea regions, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Baltic and the High North, has led to a sharp deterioration in relations and has negatively impacted the security of the Euro-Atlantic region.
It must be said that such a description is typical of NATO policy documents that have been adopted for the last six years. Similar passages can easily be found in the final documents of the summits in Wales, Warsaw, Brussels and London. However, the report represents a new step. For the first time, he points to Russia as the main source of military threat for the next decade. Our country is unconditionally given first place in the list of threats.
The report points to Russia for the first time as the main source of military threat for the next decade.
For quite a long time, Western politicians and experts avoided comparing the current confrontation with Russia with the previous Cold War. It’s not just that today’s military confrontation is significantly different from what divided the world in the 1940s to 1980s. At the same time, they pointed out the absence of the notorious struggle between two systems, two ideologies. And Russia’s capabilities today are much more modest than those of the USSR. Not a very large economy, rather weak industry, obviously incapable of mass production of weapons. Plus the elderly population, from which it is no longer possible to form a five-million-strong armed force. In addition to these objective factors, subjective political calculations also played a role. The collapse of the USSR was seen in NATO as a victory. Therefore, the leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance resolutely did not want to admit the reality, namely that Russia, having now become a full-fledged successor to the Soviet Union, had resumed its military confrontation with the West. Only now, considering the prospects for NATO’s development, have experts drawn an inevitable conclusion.
The report’s authors try not to use the phrase “cold war,” but the document contains a fair amount of direct references to this concept:
In some respects, NATO’s political role is more reminiscent of the period before 1989, when it was a bulwark of democracy against an authoritarian adversary.” They insist on the need to build relations with Russia based on two approaches. The first is the full-scale deterrence characteristic of the previous Cold War: “NATO must maintain adequate conventional and nuclear weapons capabilities and the ability to resist aggression throughout the alliance.
At the same time, the second approach is supposedly a dialogue with Russia. But the dialogue is quite specific: “NATO must remain open to discuss peaceful coexistence and respond positively to constructive changes in Russia’s position.” However, “to be productive, such dialogue must be firm and conducted from a position of unity and strength. Dialogue cannot replace … fulfillment of the obligations assumed by Russia in accordance with international law and bilateral agreements, including the renunciation of the use of force.” Without mincing words, the authors of the report demand that NATO states adhere to a common position towards Russia. The report, which will form the basis for the alliance’s future Strategic Concept, leaves no doubt: NATO is entering a period of prolonged confrontation with Russia. There is no hope that relations will return to normal. The document directly states that such a return is possible only if Russia again begins to follow international law. This obviously means the return of previously occupied territories, which is impossible in principle under the current government. The Cold War is becoming a reality before our eyes. And Russia’s position in it is quite weak.
The authors of the NATO 2030 report honestly point out the internal problems of the North Atlantic Alliance. In the future, they believe, it is necessary to avoid friction between the United States and its European allies (as we know, the escapades of the outgoing president caused considerable damage to transatlantic relations). The document also requires the elimination of situations where the disagreement of just one country blocks the adoption of major decisions. But intra-NATO conflicts seem to be an almost perfect unity if we compare the situation in the alliance with what is happening in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), created by the will of Russia. The longer this alliance exists, the more obvious it becomes that its only meaning is to appease the inferiority complex of the Kremlin bosses.
The only point of the CSTO is to appease the inferiority complex of the Kremlin bosses
Just on the very day when the NATO 2030 report was presented in Brussels, Vladimir Putin held a video conference with the leaders of the CSTO member states. The entire meeting took place according to the laws of Chekhov’s dramaturgy – with the appearance of dialogue, everyone spoke about their own. The Prime Minister of Armenia says that “Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey and terrorist mercenaries from the Middle East, launched a war against the Armenian people.” The permanent head of Tajikistan, Emomali Rahmon, expectedly recalled the alarming development of the situation in Afghanistan. Amazingly, the leaders of Kyrgyzstan, which has just experienced yet another political upheaval, and the seemingly “stable” Kazakhstan, concentrated on the upcoming elections in each country. And only the Belarusian president tried to explain by NATO intervention the fact that the inhabitants of Belarus do not want to tolerate it. It is clear that each country has its own security threats. Their leaders are ready to make ritual bows to Putin. But that’s all. They are not going to support him in confrontation with the West.
CSTO leaders are ready to offer ritual bows to Putin, but are not going to support him in confrontation with the West
NATO’s apparent superiority in the new confrontation only makes this confrontation more risky. After all, the weaker side is more prone to adventure. It is no coincidence that Vladimir Putin scares Western “partners” almost daily with Russian miracle weapons. Russian and NATO troops are in close proximity to each other. Their planes regularly fly out to intercept, and their ships threaten to collide with each other. Just recently, a Russian BOD threatened to ram an American destroyer in Peter the Great Bay. But on board the American ship there are five dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles. Any incident threatens to lead to irreversible catastrophic consequences.
Foreign Ministry representative Maria Zakharova was especially outraged by the fact that NATO members consider the best option for relations with Russia not full-scale cooperation, but “just” peaceful coexistence. Meanwhile, this is precisely the only positive experience of the past Cold War. It was peaceful coexistence, which includes rules of conduct for states with directly opposite values, that actually saved the planet from nuclear disaster.
The US-Canada Institute and the Institute of Europe have just published a remarkable study: “Russia-NATO Dialogue.” How to reduce tension and avoid crises.” Four dozen well-known experts, former high-ranking politicians, diplomats and military personnel from the USA, Russia and other European countries worked on it. In fact, we are talking about a wide range of new mutual confidence measures that should reduce the threat of war. In particular, it is proposed to create special Russia-NATO emergency communication channels in sensitive regions – the Baltic and Black Sea – as well as in the Far North, to develop a set of uniform joint rules that would determine the minimum distances when aircraft and ships approach each other, as well as the procedure for crew interaction . In addition, the authors of the recommendations believe, NATO and Russia should agree to refrain from permanently deploying additional significant combat forces in areas that are located near the territory of the other side in Europe.
We are also talking about modernizing the Vienna Document – the last agreement that still somehow regulates military activity on the European continent. In particular, regarding military activity in the Baltic region (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland and Germany), Kaliningrad and the Western Military District of Russia, it would be possible to agree on special restrictions. Russia and NATO could agree to conduct large military exercises at a significant distance from a military point of view from common borders, taking into account the specifics of certain contact zones. As for sudden exercises, which remain a source of tension and are not subject to prior notification (in 2014, under the guise of such maneuvers, Moscow conducted a concentration of troops on the border in Ukraine), “silent notification” should be carried out so that information about such exercises is confidentially transmitted to high level to the other side, remaining a surprise for the troops themselves.
Obviously, it is now very important to accept the new Cold War as a fait accompli and think about how to reduce the risks of a military conflict.
