Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
NATO-Russia: the agony and the exit from it
Material posted: Publication date: 10-08-2017
The principle of "do no harm" is probably the first call that you want to use when referring to the participants in the current dialogue between Russia and the military-political bloc of NATO. This dialog basically contains the logic of the dialogue between Russia and the United States, as the latter are the leaders of the unit, causing every year less optimism.

Noticeably deteriorating while maintaining the trend of decline relationship in which even the cold war seems already strong enough term [1], transferred to the stage of agony, what a vivid testimony to serve as estimates of some authors, heralding the imminent military clash [2], and the real deterioration on the background of Ukrainian and Syrian conflicts, in which Russia and NATO (USA) diametrically opposite points of view. Official Moscow has suspended the Memorandum on the prevention of incidents and ensuring the safety of aviation operations in Syria, which was a response to the American interpretation of the situation highincidence in Idlib province [3].

However, despite the dramatic nature of assessments and seemingly patooti situation, neither Russia nor NATO (US led) are not going and will not go on about the emotions in the direction of open confrontation. To save from the agony of both parties may be rational beginning, constantly pulsating in the relations between the parties and with serious multi-dimensional basis, is formed on the following principles:

  1. The nature of Russia's relations with NATO in the military-political plane is a multilevel contacts with individual countries-members of NATO and the North Atlantic bloc as a whole. In the first case, the range of variation of the data relations exposed visible look fluctuations: from geopolitical competition (USA-Russia), long-term tension (e.g., Russia, Estonia, Poland) to the variable liking (e.g., Italy, Czech Republic) and political-ideological convergence (Russia-Hungary, Greece, Turkey). At the level of relations with the bloc as a whole expect a certain change of the device internal mechanism of NATO, the initiator of which, paradoxically, can become the United States, headed by the elected President of D. trump. The latter has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with the disproportionate contribution of member States to the General budget, and also proposed to rethink the relationship with Russia [4]. If Trump and NATO allies will be able to overcome the “crisis of first impressions” of each other, then we can expect quite a coherent position on Russia, which in Th. Stoltenberg may be more utilitarian than before.
  2. Despite the “reloading” of relations, Russia and the USA continue to adhere to the strategic agreements on a number of fronts, first and foremost, of global importance. How would the parties have not criticized the administration of former presidents (Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama), it is in them in 2011 were signed and ratified the Treaty on measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, better known as start-III. The preservation long-term incremental approach in the reduction of such weapons was a key aspect in the search for common ground in the long term, in contrast to the real interest of immediate political tactics. In the Wake of continued political dialogue between Russia and NATO at the highest diplomatic level, this fact is encouraging that the parties will be able to return to full contact also at the levels of the three working groups earlier[1]. This is evidenced by the reanimated negotiation process between the General staffs of the parties [5].
  3. None of the current administrations is not a party of war, because both sides, in addition to the political, appreciate the economic interest that has revealed itself even during exercise military and political discontent. According to the latest figures of the Treasury Department of the United States, Russia continues to be a consistent holder of Treasury securities, increasing its contribution at the end of 2016 year to 96.6 billion U.S. dollars, which is the highest it has been in the annual range (and this is when all those visible bilateral geopolitical collisions) [6]. Russia also continues to increase its economic potential with a number of countries-members of NATO, despite the existing and regularly updated cross-sanctions. In the coupe it gives the right to hope that the geopolitical appetite if will not give way, at least not to stifle sound economic rhetoric of the parties.
  4. As for Russia and NATO has always been and remains relevant the sobering red line beyond which the principles of political intransigence just evaporate. First and foremost, is the clear realisation detrimentally, the disastrous effects of the zero-sum game. Even if there are different interpretations and criticizing each other, the parties adhere to the fundamental postulate of the inadmissibility of chaos in the middle East and other regions. Ways of achieving peace, although perceived differently, but peace remains the ultimate objective for both parties, aware that the continuation of active hostilities as it seems because of the volatility and explosiveness of the situation, is costly, inefficient and unpredictable endeavor, which is sure to be felt in the medium and long term. From the point of view of the last possible fight against such global threats as terrorism. The internal division of the camp fighting terrorism of the parties, the erosion of their position in relation to this threat is the red line which is the only outcome with a negative sign. After the frequent terrorist attacks in major cities of the world, it is hard to imagine a threat that would more unite the irreconcilable geopolitical actors. Secondly, in itself the presence of Russian military forces and NATO forces (including us forces) in several regions around the globe makes the likelihood of a potential full scale war between Russia and NATO (i.e., figuratively speaking, the transition from agony, clinical death) is extremely low: if this happens, this war will be the most deadly, fast, and destructive in all human history. Given this and the fact that Russia together with NATO there is much to ponder, including in terms of the existing unpredictable (i.e., extremely dangerous) totalitarian political regimes in some countries, it is doubtful that the parties will follow the path of the inflation tension.

Noted the principles that form the basis of a rational approach to prevent amplification of antagonistic superstructure are the fundamental elements, reference to which will be by Russia and NATO States from the current agony. More frequent appeals to him, according to the author, can be a sufficiently effective means to pessimistic views about the future of these relations and remained speculative and should not have survived the transformation on the level of empiricism.

Source base

[1] Putin stated that relations with the US "even worse than during the cold war." Policy. RBC. 31.03.2017. (Electronic resource) <>

[2] Backing Into World War III. Robert Kagan. Foreign Policy. 06.02.2017. (Online source) <>

[3] the Statement of the MFA of Russia in connection with the armed action of the United States April 7, 2017. The Ministry of foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Section: United States of America (USA). (Electronic resource) <>

[4] NATO countries are spending more on defense but Trump can't claim credit. Ivana Kottasova. CNN. (Online source) <>; As Trump re-evaluates NATO, NATO must rethink Russia. Deutsche Welle. News. Top Stories. (Online source) <>

[5] the General staff of Russia and NATO for the first time held talks. RIA-Novosti/Russia Today. Section: Security. (Electronic resource) <>

[6] Major Foreign Holders of Treasure Securities (in billions of dollars). Department of the Treasury/Federal Reserve Board March 15, 2017. (Online source) <>


[1] : the working group in the airspace; the group in the field of logistics and logistics group in the area of missile defense.

Hakob Gabrielyan

RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security
Возрастное ограничение