Russia and NATO: who is threatening whom? Wikimedia Commons
NATO and Russia
In
her recent article “Russia – A
Threat to European Security? A View from Germany”, Gabriele
Schöler argues that NATO’s recent “counteraction” against Russia amounts
to “provocative behaviour”, since it could be seen as a threat to Russian
security. Since 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia has seen the
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the loss of much of its territorial control
and global influence. Not only has Russia lost its status as a major world
power, it has given that very power up to its arch-enemy from the Cold War: the
United States or rather NATO, when the latter integrated all the former Eastern
European Warsaw Pact states and three former USRR republics to boot.
After
this historical and political reasoning, Schöler openly asks: “Who is perceived
to pose a threat to whom?” claiming that this is a more critical and logical
question than “who started the conflict?”
As
NATO troops are currently deployed in Poland and the Baltics, Schöler goes on
by saying that deploying “NATO troops in Central and Eastern Europe on a
permanent basis would be a clear violation of the Founding Act on Mutual
Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation
signed in Paris in 1997”. The act was initiated to ease Moscow’s concerns about
NATO’s eastern enlargement and its original mission was to “build together a
lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of
democracy and cooperative security”.
However,
as Russia started to regain political, economic and military strength, its
leadership took a more confrontational stance which was not aligned with Western
values. Published early in 2017 by the Royal United Services for Defence and
Security Studies, the book “NATO and the North Atlantic: Revitalising
Collective Defence” supports the argument that Russia is trying to meddle in
Western affairs, claiming as its starting point that “Russia is blatantly
attempting to change the rules and principles that serve as the foundation of
European law and order.” The greater part of this work’s thesis puts Russia at
the centre of the West’s military and defence concerns, giving NATO a palpable
reason for its comeback as an essential international organisation.
NATO’s
revamped role
During
the US presidential campaign, Donald Trump, then the Republican candidate,
frequently contested NATO’s existence, calling it “obsolete”, while accusing
its members of not upholding their commitment of paying 2% of their GDP to the
Brussels-based organisation.
In
April this year, after a meeting with NATO’s Secretary-General Jens
Stoltenberg in Washington DC, President Trump backtracked one of his most
controversial campaign promises, saying NATO was “no longer obsolete”. According to
the analyst Michael Chossudovsky, pro-NATO advisers influenced Trump to
change his stance, showing that the US President is not exerting any
presidential authority but caving in to the dominant interests of the US
elites.
In
Europe, NATO is widely perceived as an indispensable institution for the
security of the continent, based on the argument of a resurgent Russia and a
“vulnerable Europe” following the terror attacks in several European cities.
On
the same note, Andrew A. Michta wrote for Carnegie Europe: “A Common Threat Assessment for NATO?”
pointing out “two issues” that are rapidly rising to the top of the
organisation’s agenda: “regionally, a resurgent and geo-strategically assertive
Russia and globally, the accelerating threat of Islamic terrorism”. Michta goes
on, saying that this is “a unique opportunity for NATO to align the security
outlooks of key European members with that of the US”.
Nevertheless,
in May, on the occasion of the first NATO summit attended by Trump, in
Brussels, the US president kept his accusations towards 23 of the 28 NATO
members of being freeloaders for not paying their fair share towards military
protection. The US’ current defence
budget of $824.6 billion is the second largest item of federal
government expenditure after social security at $1 trillion.
Russia: Declining power or imminent threat?
Now,
let’s take a look at how the Western media has been portraying Russia’s
conduct. The Economist published in October 2016 “The threat
from Russia”, where it highlighted the seemingly endless episode of
“Russia hacking the American election” and touched on the “mass slaughter in
Syria”, the annexation of Crimea and accusations of Russia talking casually
about using nuclear weapons.
While
the idea of a fragmented Europe is likely to be in the Kremlin’s interests, the
Russian intervention in the Syrian conflict is evidently not in the West’s
interests.
Syria’s
president Bashar al-Assad said during an
interview with a Chinese news broadcaster that “the only serious force
effectively fighting the Islamic State together with Syria is Russia”. Assad
went further, saying that the US deployment of military in Syrian territory was
illegal since they were not invited. Interestingly, Reuters published a similar
news piece – “Assad calls
US forces ‘invaders’ but still hopeful on Trump” – yet it opted to
leave out Assad’s declarations on Russia.
On
the occasion of the forthcoming celebration of the 1917 October Revolution,
Foreign Policy (FP) magazine wrote, last December, “The Soviet
Union is Gone, But It’s Still Collapsing”, in which a number of FP’s
contributors outlined the reasons behind the Russian Federation’s stagnation
over time, mainly from the 2000’s. The authors pointed out that Russia should
not base its foreign policy on ideology and claimed that the former Empire
can’t lead through imperialism. Moreover, they claim that the advent of
globalisation has only empowered autocrats.
Lenin and The House of Soviets in the background. (Photo: Marta Pacheco)
In
March 2017, James Kirchick wrote for FP the article “The Plot
Against Europe”, in which he envisages a gloomy future where Putin
will roll into Estonia, triggering the first in a series of assaults.
FP
magazine has also been publishing differing views on the so-called “Russian
threat”. In his article entitled “Vladimir
Putin Isn’t a Supervillain”, Mark Lawrence Shred argues
that “Russia is neither the global menace, nor dying superpower, of America’s
increasingly hysterical fantasies.” For the author, reality lies between the
extremes – a declining power and an imminent threat. Russia is not nearly the
global menace that many fear, nor is it doomed to collapse. Russia’s
geopolitical strength is indeed constrained by its demographic, economic,
social, and political weaknesses, but those aren’t as catastrophic as they’re
often made to be.
On
the other hand, in March 2017, EUobserver published an article “Russian missiles pose new threat to
Europe”, in which critics from the US and Germany expressed concerns
about the Russian missiles deployed in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave between
Poland and Lithuania. On 10 March, after the EU summit in Brussels, EUobserver
delivered another alarming title: “EU alarmed by Russian meddling in
Balkans”. At stake are growing fears of nationalist and ethnic
tensions in the region that EU leaders believe to be the ideal opportunity for
Russian interference in the form of disinformation campaigns.
Who is threatening whom?
Since
the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, tensions have grown between
Moscow and the West. Endless warnings were delivered by EU leaders until
economic sanctions were imposed on Russia. While Russia claims Crimea as its
rightful territory, the West, backed by NATO, started moving forward with military
deployments in the Baltics, Poland and Romania. The Kremlin did not
take long to react to the military deployed in Poland and the Baltics, branding
it a threat to
Russia’s national security.
The
Cold War feeling has been growing more intense. At least, that’s what the media
are conveying on both East and West. Will Putin make an attempt on European
soil through the Baltic? What should NATO do to make it more difficult to
present its largely defensive acts as aggressive moves against Russia?
Comparing
the pictures one sees through the lenses of Western media on the one hand, and
the RT and Sputnik, often rightly branded as the Kremlin’s propaganda outlets,
on the other, one cannot help but see yet another war of words and
(dis)information.
