COM: Putin’s Stately Riddle

Russia’s grouchy suspicious attitude toward NATO could seem overrated. However, one must consider that maps in offices of politicians in Kremlin place Russia in the center of the world. What des the world look like from the Red Square?

 

In an address to the Federal Assembly in April 2005, Putin spoke about the genuine drama the collapse of the Soviet Union was to the Russian nation: "we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. For the Russian nation it was a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself. Individual savings were depreciated, and old ideals destroyed. Many institutions were disbanded or reformed carelessly. Terrorist intervention and the Khasavyurt capitulation that followed damaged the country’s integrity."

 

 

With NATO incorporating the Baltics, Poland, Romania and other formerly communist countries, Russia felt isolated in the west by a “sanitary circle” that will close completely with the incorporation of Ukraine.

 

As Zbigniew Brzezinski acknowledged in ‘The Grand Chessboard’, of all the blows Russia received, the most worrisome would be the loss of Ukraine.

 

These earthquakes had aftershocks. Beside NATO enlargement, Russia helplessly watched the Alliance’s military involvement in the former Yugoslavia in 1999. in December 2001, the White House denounced the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. In 2002, the US occupied Afghanistan. One year later, they moved into Iraq. Late 2003 brought about the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia, and late 2004 saw the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine. Russian media speculated the next “revolution” would be in Moscow.

 

At the Security Conference in Munich in February 2007, Putin ranted against what he called the US’ “unipolar” policy: "Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts ". Moreover, Putin said he sees greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. "One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way,” he said.

 

Frustration in Kremlin is that much greater since in the early ‘90s, Moscow made increased efforts to collaborate with the West, but its fears were completely ignored. Brzezinski honestly admitted to this reality, saying the disappointment could have maybe been avoided if the U.S. had embraced the NATO enlargement concept earlier, during the U.S.-Russia “honeymoon”, and in the meantime had made Russia “an offer it could not refuse”, namely a special cooperation relationship between Russia and NATO. The U.S. could have done that in 1993, Brzezinski writes, immediately after Yeltsin in August publicly expressed support for Poland’s interest in joining the North Atlantic Alliance.

 

Therefore, Russia cannot accept the circumstance that the most powerful military alliance in history is expanding toward its borders citing threats such as arm, drugs and human trafficking.

 

"We closed our bases in Cam Ranh Bay (Vietnam), on Cuba, we took our bases out of Eastern Europe. And what did we get? (U.S.) bases in Romania, bases in Bulgaria, the missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland," Putin said Friday in Bucharest.

 

Moreover, he stressed after the NATO-Russian council at the NATO summit in Bucharest, that NATO’s eastward expansion is the movement of military infra-structure towards Russian borders. "I heard them saying today that the expansion is not directed against Russia. But it’s the potential, not intentions that matters. Nobody changed article 5 of the Washington Treaty," Putin said.

 

Reference to article 5 may appear surprising. The article refers to the possibility of one or several member states becoming victims of an unprovoked attack in the responsibility area in Europe or North America. Why is Moscow bothered by the existence of this article based on the famous principle of musketeers “all for one and one for all”? Why should article 5, which cites collective defense, be amended since Russia doesn’t plan to attack anyone? But Putin let it slip!

 

Is Russia afraid that NATO countries are still determined to defend each other in case of an attack? As Putin suggested, Kremlin is in fact more concerned that the allies have the military capability to do it. Obviously, Russia would prefer NATO to turn into a hands-tied security organization.

 

Specific literature mentions the so-called “security dilemma”, which refers to the conciliation, on the one hand, of the need to augment one’s own security without raising security concerns for the others, on the other hand. In other words, the question is: how can NATO increase security for its member states without threatening Moscow?

 

 

Old Europe seems to be the most sensitive to this aspect. French prime minister François Fillon explained before the NATO summit, in an interview, that France would not back the bids of former soviet nations Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. "We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think it is not the right response to the balance of power in Europe and between Europe and Russia, and we want to have a dialogue on this subject with Russia," Fillon said.

 

Other European states, especially Germany, expressed similar reserves and the result came in Bucharest, where Georgia and Ukraine were not offered the Membership Action Plan they longed for.

 

For pragmatic reasons, France and Germany bet on the compromise with Russia. Accepting Ukraine would have caused Moscow to retort aggressively, would have started an arming spiral and belligerent statements. Putin already said in Bucharest that Russia plans to develop its military capabilities further.

 

Surprisingly also in Bucharest, Putin denied the connection between NATO and the democratic development of its member states. He said NATO’s role as a “democratizator” is overblown and dismissed as “nonsense” NATO claims that its expansion served to promote democracy, citing the example of Latvia, where discrimination against Russian-speaking “non-citizens” continued even after the Baltic state gained NATO membership.

 

"What is this nonsense? Entering NATO doesn’t magically turn countries democratic. NATO is not a democratizator. Take Ukraine: if it were accepted into NATO yesterday, would it have become more of a democracy?" Putin said.

 

That is, Albania is not necessarily a democracy, Romania is not necessarily a democracy, France is not necessarily a democracy, the United States is not necessarily a democracy. But Russia and Ukraine certainly are democracies, although they are not NATO members.

 

To compromise in our turn (since compromise was the keyword of the NATO summit), Russia and Britain are both democracies. It is known that democracies do not attack each other. Then why is Russia afraid of NATO? Because Moscow and Washington are not "Like-minded Nations", they don’t have the same values and don’t share the same ideals.

 

Steering Ukraine toward democracy, which is a pre-requisite of NATO in the plan the country will be offered at some point, entails civilian control over armed forces and intelligence services, the separation and equality of stately powers, etc, all those things that Russia lacks. A democratic Kiev can no longer be controlled by Moscow. And the dispute goes beyond geopolitical aspects, into lifestyles. The Russian soul wants to be perpetuated unaltered and Russia wants to be recognized as a great power and play its game of interests in the nearby vicinity, in a similar manner in which the United States controls Latin America, for instance.

 

Everyone seems to agree the Cold War is over. Maybe the ideological Cold War is. But currently, although unstated, there is an economic cold war between Russia and the West. And the icy friendship between Russia and NATO will come up with each mention of Ukraine.

 

 

Beyond protocol smiles and kind words, Putin let out his real feelings for Romania.

 

Congenial and amused, he gave thanks for hospitableness and reminded that the Romania-Russia bilateral relationship would be 130 years old in October.

 

Putin showed he had done his homework and is very familiar with bilateral relations. In other words, the “democrat czar” might as well have said: "I have a good memory and, if I know this, you can be sure I know everything you’ve said in Neptun, president Basescu!".

 

Then, the Russian leader recited his “poem” thanking is Romanian host for his hospitality, for the good organization of the event and the constructive and positive dialog.

 

Then came the warning, when Putin said economic relations developed a lot after Romanian president Basescu’s visit to Moscow in 2005, adding commercial exchanges reached nearly 5 billion dollars. In translation, Romania paid Russia nearly 5 billion dollars, paying the highest price in Europe for gas. According to data of the Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry, in 2007, the total volume of bilateral commercial exchange stood at $5 billion, of which exports were $582.8 million and imports were $4.417 billion, coming to a $3.834 billion gain for Russia.

 

Also, to leave no shimmer of as doubt, Putin in the press conference explained how he sees the statement in Neptun, ruling out a possible return of the Cold War: "None of the global players — Europe, the United States or Russia — is interested in returning to the past," Putin said, adding "And we have no ideological differences."

 

After Basescu’s visit to Moscow in 2005, Romanian – Russian relations were in obvious crisis. Maybe the president’s next trip to Moscow will change things. For the time being, ties between Moscow and Bucharest remain a riddle awaiting resolution for the national interest of both countries.