After studying results of the NATO summit, which took place in Warsaw on July 8-9, Moscow came to a conclusion that NATO continued staying in a military and political “through-the-looking-glass” world and focusing its efforts on ‘deterrence’ of a nonexistent ‘threat from the East.’ A serious misbalance between the strengthening of NATO flanks at the time of an unprecedented scale of a terrorist threat coming from the South shows that the policy of the alliance is divorced from real problems and needs in the sphere of protecting citizens of the NATO member countries, Maria Zakharova, the Official Spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, said. Attempts to ‘demonize’ Russia and to try to justify the steps taken in the sphere of military buildup, divert attention from a destructive role of the alliance and its certain members in provoking crises and supporting conflict situations in various regions of the world are gaining catastrophic scales, Moscow believes. At the same time, NATO ignores long-lasting negative consequences and risks for the whole Euro-Atlantic security system, which emerge as a result of certain steps made by Washington and Brussels, which are directed at changing the current balance of power, including a forced implementation of THAAD plans by the US/NATO in Europe. Moscow expects explanations from representatives of the alliance on NATO’s buildup in all areas at the upcoming session of the Russia-NATO Council on July 13th.
At the same time, it turns out that there is no unity on cooperation with Russia within the alliance. Vestnik Kavkaza presents an analysis of the disputes in an article by nytimes.com.
President Obama and European leaders tried to project a united front at a NATO summit meeting on Friday, with Mr. Obama dismissing as “hyperbole” any fear that Britain’s vote to leave the European Union would unravel the broader trans-Atlantic security alliance. But lurking beneath a veneer of unity was growing evidence in Warsaw of fissures within Europe that go beyond its highly visible split with Britain. Most revolve around the question of whether to deter or placate Russia as it continues to prowl unpredictably to the alliance’s east.
From NATO’s economic sanctions to pressure Russia to the alliance’s military exercises meant to deter it, Germany, France and Italy are showing signs of wavering from the hard-line stance they adopted after President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia annexed Crimea two years ago.
Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy recently took part in the St. Petersburg Forum, a Davos-like conference convened by Mr. Putin that had been shunned by most European leaders. President François Hollande of France has talked about the need to engage Russia. The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, criticized a major military exercise in Poland last month for provoking the Russians. He called it “saber-rattling.”
“Putin is testing all these countries, and he is dividing some of them,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former United States ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Mr. Burns, who just completed a trip to Europe, said, “I was struck by the divisions within Europe’s leadership about how to respond to these challenges.”
The argument over how clearly to signal a more muscular alliance — one that is prepared to push back if Mr. Putin overreaches or is ready to strike back if Russia attacks a former Soviet state now part of the alliance — was visible at the meeting in many forms.
When the Obama administration published a list on Friday of 17 NATO and other military exercises the United States had taken part in — including the one in Poland — it placed them under the rubric “U.S. Assurance and Deterrence Efforts in Support of NATO Allies.”
Until the annexation of Crimea, members of the alliance rarely used the word deterrence in speaking about Russia. The Russians often came to meetings like this one as part of a “NATO-Russia Council” that was meant to bleach all sense of confrontation out of the relationship.
Before the summit meeting, NATO agreed to make cyberspace a new domain of conflict, alongside ground, air, sea and outer-space operations. This was intended as a warning to the Russians, officials said, about the use of hybrid methods of disruption, including the cyberattacks in the last decade have struck Estonia, Georgia and, most recently, Ukraine’s electric power grid.
Perhaps the most notable indicator of the argument over whether to openly deter Russia or to tone down any potential provocations centers on nuclear weapons, once the keystone of the alliance’s ability to hold Russia at bay.
For the first few years of the Obama administration, there was debate inside the alliance about whether to rid Europe of the B-61, a nuclear weapon that was stored on the Continent and could be carried by numerous NATO aircraft.
Nowadays, said Thomas O. Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, “the voices previously calling for withdrawal have become much more quiet.”
Moreover, the NATO Review, a magazine published by the alliance, recently suggested that nuclear weapons once again had to move back to the center of the alliance’s defense plans. “The forces involved in the nuclear mission should be exercised openly and regularly, without undermining their specific nature,” said the magazine, which the alliance said did not necessarily reflect its official position. “Such exercises should involve not only nuclear-weapon states,” it continued, “but other non-nuclear allies.”
To keep the Russians guessing, the article said that “exercises should not point at any specific nuclear thresholds” that might signal to the Russians what it would take to provoke a nuclear response.
It is hard to imagine the Germans, in particular, signing up for that strategy. But the Obama administration has promoted the improvement and retention of some kinds of nuclear weapons, even while vowing to reduce their numbers.
Politics play a part in Europe’s changing views. Mr. Steinmeier is a leader of Germany’s Social Democratic Party, and his criticism of the military exercise in Poland was calculated partly to distinguish his center-left party from the conservative Christian Democrats of Chancellor Angela Merkel before elections next year.
In a speech to the German Parliament on Thursday, Ms. Merkel reiterated the traditional message of supporting deterrence by NATO nations and pursuing dialogue with Moscow. She stressed that the alliance’s former Soviet bloc members were “most profoundly disturbed” by Russia’s recent actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine and on Russia’s western borders.
Still, she insisted that robust deterrence and dialogue were “inseparably connected” and praised not just the conservative defense minister, Ursula von der Leyen, but also Mr. Steinmeier.
Over the last two years, Germany has played a more active global role, diplomatically and militarily. It recently increased its military spending to just over 37 billion euros ($41 billion) this year. Yet that is still far below the target set at the last NATO summit meeting in Wales.
Mr. Obama, after meeting in the morning with leaders of the European Union, tried to play down fears that Britain’s exit would weaken European resolve. He acknowledged that the “Brexit” vote had “led some to suggest that the entire edifice of European security and prosperity is crumbling.”
But he added, “Let me just say that as is often the case in moments of changes, that this hyperbole is misplaced.”
The president expressed confidence that Britain and Europe would be able negotiate an amicable separation. And he said Britain’s eventual exit need not curtail the sanctions that the United States and Europe had imposed on Mr. Putin’s government.
Donald Tusk, a former Polish prime minister who is the president of the European Union, echoed that message and pledged that other union members would not follow Britain’s lead. “Brexit, as sad and meaningful as it is, is just an incident and not the beginning of a process,” he said. “To all our opponents on the inside and out who are hoping for a sequel to Brexit, I want to say loud and clear, you won’t see on the screen the words ‘to be continued.’”
But even if Britain were to be the lone departure, some analysts said its absence would be disproportionately felt. “Britain played the role of the tough guy in the European Union,” Mr. Burns said. “If they do exit, we will have lost the most experienced and toughest-minded partner on issues like sanctions on Russia.”
