Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

August 25, 2010 |  1 comment |  Print  Your Opinion  

Daniel  Nikolits

Topic Russia is the Lynchpin of NATO 2020

Daniel Nikolits: When looking at the twenty-first century’s global security challenges, there is more that unites NATO and Russia than divides them. The next Strategic Concept must aim to strengthen the partnership with Russia for the benefit of both sides.

The next NATO Strategic Concept will state that confronting the modern global challenges to security – terrorism, resource scarcity, effects of climate change, migration, cyber-security, etc. – is the primary mission for all Alliance members in the near future. However, to ensure that NATO capabilities are as effective as possible, a renewed focus on building up its long-term partnerships should not be neglected in the discussions for the Strategic Concept. NATO leaders should take this as an opportunity to boldly affirm that with Russia, there is mutual interest for a partnership that will ensure the continued security and stability of all sides.

The 1999 Strategic Concept laid out a NATO-Russian partnership with the aim of building "a stable, peaceful and undivided Europe." A decade later, this can be described as an ongoing success. During the same time, security challenges facing both NATO and Russia have largely moved beyond this area into regions that did not have the same focus then as they do today. The need exists with the next Strategic Concept to tighten the relations and partnership between NATO and Russia, because the mutual interests that unite the two are greater than those issues over which they conflict.

The 2002 enactment of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) was the beginning of six years of an incremental but meaningful creation of a role for Russia within NATO. However, this process froze in response to the 2008 conflict with Georgia. The ‘thawing' that has occurred since then has shown that potential still exists for a strong Russian partnership. New security initiatives and agreements have been implemented relating to missile defense and nuclear disarmament. The NATO-Russian Cooperative Airspace Initiative, as another example, is working to combat air terrorism through joint monitoring of border airspace. In recent months, Russia has allowed NATO-ISAF troops more access through its territory for supply routes to Afghanistan and is currently negotiating the sale of Mi-17 helicopters to the Afghan military.

The time is right to proactively engage Russia and bring it into a closer partnership with the Alliance. The next Strategic Concept needs to boldly and emphatically state the need for a strong security partnership between NATO and Russia. NATO should aim for the following:

1. Mutual trust needs to be (re)built. Russia has to believe that NATO is not simply pushing an agenda from Washington, while NATO members need a Russia that is willing to put aside its twentieth century mindset of territorial spheres of influence to assure mutual security for all. The political hijacking of NATO by either side is short-sighted in its effect.

2. NATO must declare strong intentions. The Strategic Concept should state emphatically the desired formal, reciprocal and informed partnership that would be most beneficial. Russia may never become a member of NATO, but its partnership is vital and should be so stated.

3. The NRC must be developed into a more substantial institution within the Alliance. The aim should be to reinstitute all the programs that were interrupted by the 2008 conflict and increase the visibility and potential of the NRC for security co-operation in the future.

4. The re-formalization of NRC talks at the ministerial level that began in 2009 with General Secretary Rasmussen's engagement visit to Russia should be continued. Greater consultation between both sides on all issues pertinent to security should be pursued in official capacities.

NATO must also clearly state that, while not imminent, inclusion of new members is still open and voluntary for countries, especially in the Caucasus. Increasing membership rolls should be framed not as a security threat to Russia, but perhaps even as a possibility for the nation itself in the future. With the right fostering, by 2020 the partnership between NATO and Russia can serve as a lynchpin for the efforts to combat the challenges of the twenty-first century, globalized world. Recognizing and combating the threats common to all sides must take the fore.

Daniel Nikolits is currently pursuing his MA in international relations at Humboldt University in Berlin.

Related Materials:

  • 9
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Joerg  Wolf

August 30, 2010

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Thank you for this interesting article and outstanding contribution to the policy team!

I agree with your central thesis that there is more that unites NATO and Russia than divides them. I just wonder what needs to be done to for both parties to realize that we have so many common interests.
Is it a media issue? Are the disagreements hyped too much?
Are Russia and NATO too much competitors/rivals to cooperate more?
I mean, what is stopping us?
Do prejudices left over from the cold war cloud the judgement on both sides?

Last year, we conducted a survey of West European and North American experts: "A Future with Russia as a Strategic Partner?" Although a majority of the experts stated that Russia and the West share more common than diverging interests, only three out of twenty-one believed that these commonalities can be used encourage Russia into a strategic partnership with the West within the next three years.

http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/Open_Think_Tank_Article/A_F...

I agree with you that the time is right to proactively engage Russia and bring it into a closer partnership with the Alliance.
The Russians often complain that NATO only calls upon them, when they (we) want something, like support for Afghanistan. Do you think NATO leaders should seriously consider Medvedev's proposal for a European Security Treaty as a goodwill and confidence building measure?
So far, Medvedev's initiative seems to have been brushed aside by the West and criticized as not needed or lacking specificity, which is true, but perhaps it would be wise to respond more diplomatically and engage the Russians more on this issue rather than responding with Njet. What's your position?
Thanks!
 

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org


Community

You are in the archive of all articles published on atlantic-community.org from 2007 to 2012. To read the latest articles from our open think tank and network with community members, please go to our new website