Does Russia want to join NATO?

Russian experts are busy drawing up a concept that envisages Russia’s alliance or even integration with NATO. This was reported on September 22 on the inosmi.ru website which quoted Igor Jurgens, an advisor to Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev and director of Institute of Modern Development, as saying this to the Czech agency aktualne.cz. “The Cold War must end with a peace treaty. But this has not yet occurred. We would be very glad to have a peace treaty that would in fact envisage allied relations and cooperation between Russia and NATO. But this demands that both Russia and the Alliance change. This is hard work, and if the goals we are setting are not clear enough, we will not achieve them,” Mr. Jurgens noted. Incidentally, the US does not rule out Russia joining NATO. On the eve of the NATO-Russia Council meeting held in New York on September 22, after a two-year pause, US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder said that Russia’s likely NATO membership was an open question: he quoted Article 10 of the NATO Statute, which says that any European country may be invited to enter the Alliance if it meets the admission standards.

“This is a question that Russia itself should decide on. NATO does not invite countries, but countries first express their interest in membership. Plenty of countries in Europe meet the membership requirements and don’t want to be members of NATO. And there are also countries in Europe that do want to be members of NATO and don’t meet the membership requirements. Russia will have to decide for itself, first and foremost, what relationship it wants,” Voice of America quotes Daalder as saying. The Day asked Sam GREENE, deputy director of the Moscow Carnegie Center, to comment on how serious Russian intentions to join NATO are.

“Indeed, a certain part of the Russian political and economic elite believes it can reap benefits from rapprochement with international and, above all, Western institutions. This concerns Europe, NATO, and individual countries, such as Germany or the US. This would enable them to make business, promote their interests, and diminish their Western partners’ feeling of political risk which, accordingly, reduces the value of the capital of Russian companies that want to enter Western financial markets. All these people have, naturally, felt a certain discomfort, caused by the problems in Russian-Western relations over the past few years. It is they who called for the so-called ‘resetting’ of relations with America. Naturally, you can see this in an Institute of Modern Development report on what Russia may look like in 20, 30, 50 and 100 years. In particular, they do not rule out Russia’s membership in such an organization as NATO.

“But I would not regard this as a steady movement towards integration with NATO. Russia has declared its entry in the WTO a strategic goal, but we can see that its leadership can detract from this goal at any moment and forgo this process, or even reverse its course, if it is expedient. There is no such a goal as NATO or EU membership. So there is no use expecting any sustained movements in this direction. Russia’s leadership will only behave in a positive way in their relations with the US and Europe if this serves Russia’s interests. But if these interests change or run counter to the new political realities, the leadership will change their behavior very fast. I do not think that the confrontation that had existed before Medvedev and Obama came to power was caused by any deep-rooted factors or a Russia-West animosity. Nor do I think that the current rapprochement was caused by profound understanding of common long-term strategic interests.”

And what then lies behind the words of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the New York meeting of the Russia-NATO Council, saying that Moscow and NATO were “truly on a solid path to improve relations?”

“It is, of course, an optimistic diplomatic declaration. It would be strange if Mr. Rasmussen had said that we were making sluggish progress. Naturally, public politicians and diplomats ought to speak in such grandiose categories. But we so far do not see any real actions that would serve to institutionalize these relations. Yes, we can see that the Russia-NATO committee has resumed its work. We can see cooperation on Afghanistan. But all these things are of a temporary and situational nature. If we saw a real movement towards the establishment of a joint antimissile defense, it would be an entirely different thing. For it is a new institution in the making, one that binds together, firmly and for a long time, the strategic security of Russia and NATO countries. We can hear some words about these things but we still cannot see readiness to discuss this in detail.”

In an interview with the Czech news site aktualne.cz, Jurgens said that the Cold War should be ended with a peace treaty. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes that negotiating new agreements with Russia is not the best way to ensure European security. What can you say on this matter?

“Ms. Clinton and Mr. Jurgens seem to be talking a bit in parallel but not with each other. In general, they are talking to their home audience rather than with each other. As a matter of fact, a peace treaty usually follows a declared conflict. Fortunately, nobody ever declared the Cold War. A treaty is needed to consolidate the postwar situation as a status quo, whether it is the marking of a new border or commitments of the parties to the conflict. There is no basis for this kind of a treaty between Cold War participants. Nor is it clear who will sign this treaty. The US and Russia? Formally, Russia is a legal successor to the Soviet Union. But neither the Soviet Union nor the US were the only participants in the Cold War. This was a face-off between different camps, with consequences for the whole world and conflicts even on the African continent. So this treaty should concern that continent too. But it is not clear how this could be brought into play. These are fine words, but they are, unfortunately, about nothing.

“Now about what Ms. Clinton is saying. As she wants to get the new START and other agreements with Russia ratified by the Senate, she has to defend this flank. She must not show that the US is allowing itself to be led by Russia. Clinton must show that Washington is not giving Russia all that Moscow would like to get. One more thing. Russia could sign a treaty with such European players as Germany, Brussel — as capital of NATO, and Britain. But this treaty would not ensure European security because there are such countries as Ukraine and Georgia, as well as such places as Transnistria, which will not consider it binding to live by the treaties signed by Moscow, Washington, and Brussels. They are living a sovereign life of their own, and Europe will not be safe until their security has been ensured. And it is impossible to ensure their security without their participation. So, from this angle, Clinton must be right that a treaty between the US or NATO, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other, will not provide the security that the Euro-Atlantic space still needs.”

Mr. Greene, which of the Medvedev-Putin Russian tandem do you think can be consistent in developing closer relations between Russia and NATO, including possible membership?

“I can’t see any striking difference between them. But the problem is not even in this. I do not think that the tandem, i.e. the Russian leadership on the whole, be it one-headed or two-headed, is interested in consistency. In the conditions, when Russia is yielding to its Western, as they say, partners or, in other words, rivals in the economic, military and strategic plane, uncertainty and unpredictability is a very powerful weapon in their hands. Russia has an opportunity to create uncertainty and all kinds of surprises for its partners and interlocutors. Should Russia’s path be bound with some institutionalized commitments that will make the country follow a consistent line in foreign policy, this element of unpredictability will vanish. At the same time, this will eliminate a major part of Russian international authority and power.”

What about the role of China? Can the growing clout of the world’s second superpower push Russia towards the West and, particularly, towards NATO membership?

“This may happen. But I think it would be a mistake if the Russian leadership decided that it must choose between the West and the East. Firstly, China is not placing itself in opposition to the US. These countries are tied up by economic and even strategic interests. China’s prosperity is largely the result of good relations with the US, Europe, and all countries in general. China is very much integrated in the world, and it still remains one of the prime movers of the world’s overall development. If Russia chose to run away from China towards the West, it would cut off the possibility of taking part in this prosperity. This would be shortsighted. But I do not think this question is now on the agenda.”