At the first meeting of the Russia-NATO Council in more than two years, held in Brussels on January 12, as expected, the Western military alliance rejected Russia's demand to end NATO's eastward expansion and exclude the possibility of future membership for Ukraine and Georgia. But there is a possibility of unfreezing relations, continuing contacts to resolve other problems of European security. At least something like it did during the Cold War.
Jens Stoltenberg (center) and Alexander Grushko (right). Photo: ERA
Regarding tensions around Ukraine, NATO ambassadors echoed the threat of a «very high price» that Russia would pay in a hypothetical military invasion. The Russian side categorically denied this «hypothesis». That is, the result of this meeting, the very fact of which NATO called «a good signal», is similar to the outcome of the January 10 Geneva meeting between Russia and the United States.
NATO allies, through the mouth of Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, said that many of Russia's demands set out in the two December draft agreements are unacceptable, including calls to reduce the alliance's activities to the level of the late 90s and a promise not to admit new members.
In these projects, which look like an ultimatum, Moscow demanded from the West legal guarantees for the non-expansion of NATO and the elimination of all the «development of territory» that the alliance has made since 1997. Let me remind you of that time and the events that I followed as a journalist at the NATO headquarters in Brussels.
Then, in the spring of 1997, negotiations on a new Russia-NATO relationship, led by Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov and NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, were coming to an end. The inevitability of expanding the alliance at the expense of former members of the «socialist camp», who, after the collapse of the communist regimes, considered themselves a natural part of the Western world, was obvious. Their political elites did not trust the new Russia and were urgently looking for a place for their states under the American nuclear umbrella. They were at a low start, and the leaders of the NATO countries, in turn, were looking for a form of admitting newcomers that would not be too painful for Russia and would not lead to a break with it. One of the main meanings of Moscow's negotiations with Brussels was bargaining on the terms of enlargement.
Primakov and Solana agreed that after the accession of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to NATO, there will be no permanent deployment of significant armed forces of other NATO states and the creation of NATO military infrastructure facilities. They proceeded from the assumption that democratic Russia, as a strategic ally of NATO, would not pose any threat to them. One of the heated debates at the final stage was the formalization of these agreements. The Russian delegation insisted on a legally binding treaty, NATO on a political declaration at the highest state level.
When I asked Secretary General Solana why NATO is so persistently refusing to conclude a legally binding agreement, he gave his arguments. A legally binding treaty would have required parliamentary ratification by all, then 16, NATO member countries and Russia. This procedure would take years, especially given the ambiguous attitude of the political elites. At the same time, the political document, blessed with the signatures of state leaders, is no less powerful, and NATO will strictly abide by it, he said. And he added that if Russia does something that violates the spirit of these agreements, then no legal texts will help.
Russia failed to insist on a legally binding document; in May 1997, the agreements between Primakov and Solana were reflected in the Russia-NATO Founding Act, signed at the highest level. In the same year, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary received invitations to NATO, seeking membership in the alliance. Then NATO expansion continued and even covered the former Soviet Baltic republics, but with the exception of the Yugoslav crisis, Russia's relations with NATO remained partner-like, and Russia's western border was the safest and most calm. In Solana's words, “something like that” happened in 2014: Crimea and Donbass. And the Western military alliance broke its promises not to deploy troops and infrastructure in the newcomer countries.
The disagreements between Russia and NATO over Ukraine will be difficult to overcome, said the head of the alliance Stoltenberg on Wednesday after four hours of talks between the permanent representatives of NATO countries with the Russian delegation led by Deputy Foreign Minister and former Russian Permanent Representative to NATO Alexander Grushko (the military part of the delegation was headed by Deputy Defense Minister Colonel General Alexander Fomin).
Stoltenberg said that any use of Russian force against Ukraine would be a serious political mistake, for which Russia will pay a high price.
He reaffirmed NATO's position that only Ukraine and NATO can decide if she will become a member of the alliance.
However, Stoltenberg said NATO is ready for further talks with Moscow on issues such as arms control and missile deployment, and transparency. If the negotiation process launched by this meeting continues, then NATO wants to focus on European security, transparency related to military activities, risk reduction and arms control. It is proposed to discuss mechanisms for reducing risks, incidents and accidents and, of course, contacts along the military and civilian lines.
NATO stands ready to heed Russia's concerns. But any meaningful dialogue must also take into account Western concerns about Russia's actions.
He regretted the long pause in the work of the Russia ‒ NATO Council, stressing that the NATO side had repeatedly called for its meeting to be convened. Finally, he announced his readiness, without preconditions, to reopen NATO missions in Moscow and Russia in Brussels, which were closed last year. If Russia goes on to continue the dialogue on the above topics, then negotiations will be conducted in the absence of these representations, but with them it is easier and more productive. According to him, the Russian delegation asked for time to answer this question.
But all NATO members, without exception, clearly stated that they would not compromise on basic principles, including the right of each country to choose its own path and participation in security mechanisms. This principle is enshrined in documents signed by Russia, starting with the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. It is also an integral part of NATO's founding Washington Treaty.