“The Cold War is becoming a reality before our eyes.” NATO officially declares Russia the main threat

The report “NATO-2030”, presented in early December in Brussels, recognizes Russia as the main threat to the coming decade. The alliance is moving to a deterrence strategy characteristic of the Cold War. Military columnist 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 to confrontation with opponents of the Kremlin.

War is not accepted to be declared today. Their beginning marks missile launches, air and artillery strikes. But the beginning of the Cold War is marked by lengthy declarations (remember Winston Churchill’s Fulton Speech). In Russia, they tried to pay not too much attention to the recently presented in Brussels report “NATO – 2030”. Unity in a new era.” The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in two whipped paragraphs emphasized only the inconceivation of NATO experts who do not want to notice the desire of Moscow to cooperate and justify the Russophobia of Brussels. As is the case with Russian foreign policy officials, from the words of Maria Zakharova it followed that this Russophobia covered NATO for no reason for any reason. As if there was neither the annexation of Crimea, nor a “secret” war in the Donbass

Meanwhile, this report is more than a reason for the angry Philippac Zakharova. A year ago, during the summit in London, the heads of NATO member states instructed Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to begin an analysis of the prospects for the development of the alliance. At the end of March 2020, he created a group of several well-known experts, which was headed by former German Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière and Wess Mitchell, a former US deputy secretary of state. And in early December, during the meeting of foreign ministers of the alliance, a presentation of the report prepared by the experts took place. The speech of the NATO Secretary General left no doubt that he was quite in solidarity with the conclusions. And, therefore, in not so far so far, his theses will become the basis for NATO policy documents. The report, which is typical of such documents, covers the widest range of problems: here is the future threat that China can pose, the ongoing war on terrorism, and control of breakthrough technologies, and the observance of civil rights.

For us, the main thing is that this document fixes a fundamentally changed attitude towards Russia. The report indicates that the current Strategic Concept of NATO, adopted in 2010, which is now, is clearly not in response to the changed situation in the world. One of its main goals was to establish a strategic partnership with Moscow. After the events of 2014, this looks like a strange anachronism. The experts state:

Russia’s aggression against Georgia and Ukraine, accompanied by the continued build-up of its military strength and aggressive activity in the Baltic and Black Sea regions, in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Baltic and the Far North, has led to a sharp deterioration in relations and has had a negative impact on the security of the Euro-Atlantic region.

I must say that such a description is characteristic of NATO policy documents, which have been adopted for the past six years. Such passages can be easily found in the final documents of the summits in Wales, Warsaw, Brussels and London. However, the report represents a new step. He first points to Russia as the main source of the military threat for the next decade. Our country unconditionally assigned the first place in the list of threats.

Report for the first time points to Russia as the main source of the military threat for the next decade

For a long time, Western politicians and experts have avoided comparing the current confrontation with Russia with the previous Cold War. The point is not only that today’s military confrontation differs significantly from what divided the world in the 1940’s – the 1980’s. At the same time, they pointed to the absence of the notorious struggle of the two systems, two ideologies. And Russia has opportunities now much more modest than the USSR had. Not too large an economy, a rather weak industry, obviously incapable of mass arms production. Plus the elderly population, from which it is already impossible to form five million armed forces. In addition to these objective factors, subjective political calculations also played a role. The collapse of the USSR in NATO was considered as a victory. Therefore, the leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance resolutely did not want to recognize the reality, namely, Russia, having now become a full successor to the Soviet Union, resumed its military confrontation with the West. Only now, considering the prospects for NATO development, experts have made an inevitable conclusion.

The authors of the report try not to use the phrase “cold war”, but in the document a fair amount of direct references to this concept:

In some respects, the political role of NATO is more reminiscent of the period up to 1989, when it was a bulwark of democracy against an authoritarian adversary. They insist on the need to build relations with Russia, relying on two approaches. The first is a full-scale deterrence characteristic of the previous Cold War: “NATO must maintain the adequate capacity of conventional and nuclear weapons, have the ability to withstand aggression throughout the alliance.

At the same time, the second approach seems to be a dialogue with Russia. But the dialogue is quite specific: “NATO should remain open to discussing peaceful coexistence and respond positively to constructive changes in Russia’s position.” However, “to be productive, such a dialogue must be firm and be conducted from a position of unity and strength. The implementation of the obligations undertaken by Russia in accordance with international law and bilateral agreements, including the non-restriction of force. Without immunity, the authors of the report demand that NATO states adhere to a common position towards Russia. The report, which will become the basis for the future strategic concept of the alliance, leaves no doubt that NATO is entering a period of long confrontation with Russia. It is not necessary to expect that the relationship will return to the norm. The document explicitly states that such a return is possible only if Russia again follows international law. This obviously means the return of the previously occupied territory, which under the existing government is impossible in principle. The Cold War is becoming a reality before our eyes. And Russia’s position in it is quite weak.

The authors of the report “NATO 2030” honestly point to 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 have caused considerable damage to transatlantic relations). The document also demands to exclude situations when the disagreement of all one country blocks the adoption of the most important decisions. But intra-NATO conflicts seem to be almost perfect unity if we compare the position in the alliance with what is happening in the created will of Russia of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The longer this union exists, the more obvious it becomes that its only meaning is to please the complex of inferiority of the Kremlin’s superiors.

The only meaning of the CSTO is to please the complex of inferiority of the Kremlin chiefs

Just the same day that the NATO 2030 report was presented in Brussels, Vladimir Putin held a video conference with the leaders of the CSTO member states. The whole meeting was held according to the laws of Chekhov’s drama – in the appearance of the dialogue, everyone spoke about his own. The Prime Minister of Armenia – about the fact that “Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey and mercenary terrorists from the countries of the Middle East, unleashed 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, who have just survived the next political upheavals, and it seems to have a “stable” Kazakhstan focused on the elections ahead in each of the countries. And only the Belarusian president tried to explain by the intervention of NATO that the residents of Belarus do not want to tolerate him. It is obvious that each of the countries has its own security threats. Their leaders are ready to beat Putin ritual bows. But only. They are not going to support it in confrontation with the West.

CSTO leaders are ready to beat Putin ritual bows, but are not going to support him in confrontation with the West

NATO’s apparent superiority in a new confrontation makes this confrontation only more risky. The weak side is more prone to adventures. It is no coincidence that Vladimir Putin almost daily frightens Western “partners” with Russian miracle weapons. The troops of Russia and NATO are in close proximity to each other. Their planes regularly fly to intercept, and the ships threaten each other with a collision. Most recently, the Russian BKP threatened to ram the American destroyer in the Bay of Peter the Great. But on board the American ship – five dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles. Any incident threatens to lead to irreversible catastrophic consequences.

The representative of the foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova was especially outraged that the best option for relations with Russia NATO considers not full-scale cooperation, but “only” peaceful coexistence. Meanwhile, it is the only positive experience of the last Cold War. It is peaceful coexistence, which includes the rules of behavior of states with directly opposite values, that actually saved the planet from a nuclear catastrophe.

The Institute of the United States and Canada and the Institute of Europe have just published a noteworthy study: “Dialogue “Russia – NATO”. How to Reduce Tens and Avoid Crises.” It was attended by four dozen well-known experts, former high-ranking politicians, diplomats and military from the United States, Russia and other European countries. In fact, we are talking about a wide range of new measures of mutual trust, which should reduce the threat of war. In particular, it is proposed to create special emergency communication channels Russia-NATO in sensitive regions – Baltic and Black Sea – as well as in the Far North, to develop a set of unified joint rules that would determine the minimum distances when approaching aircraft and ships, as well as the order of interaction of crews. In addition, according to the authors of the recommendations, NATO and Russia should agree to refrain from permanently deploying additional significant combat forces in areas located near the territory of the other side in Europe.

We are also talking about the modernization of the Vienna document – the last agreement, which still somehow regulates military activity on the European continent. In particular, about military activity in the Baltic region (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland and Germany), Kaliningrad and the Western Military District of Russia could agree on special restrictions. Russia and NATO could agree to conduct large military exercises at a significant distance from the common borders, taking into account the specifics of certain zones of contact. As for the holding of sudden exercises that remain a source of tension and do not fall under preliminary notifications (in 2014, Moscow, under the guise of such maneuvers, conducted a concentration of troops on the border in Ukraine), it is necessary to carry out a “quiet notification” that information about such exercises is confidentially transmitted at a high level to the other side, remaining a surprise for the troops themselves.

It is obvious that now it is very important to accept a new cold war as a fait accompli and think about how to reduce the risks of a military clash.