by VK
The 48th Munich Security Conference held on February 3-5 will stress on the new US military strategy, which totally differs with its reconsideration of security priorities. Washington wants to reduce military expenses, abandoning its high-scaled and long-lasting campaigns. A video conference of Moscow and Berlin was organized, entitled “New tendencies in foreign policy and security policy – challenges of Russia, NATO and EU”, gathering experts of foreign policy to discuss the outcome of the military strategy for Europe and NATO and development of relations of Russia and its Western partners.
Constantine Kosachev, Deputy Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee for International Affairs
The Munich Conference coincides with development of new global tendencies this year. The nature of discussions changes. It used to be some sort of a school of Trans-Atlantic solidarity, headed by the US side, and the US opinion was traditionally prevailing and taken as an entity in NATO and the European Union. But it has been realized that the North Atlantic Alliance can no longer cope with security problems, despite being the most powerful and efficient structure in its sphere. US doctrine remains an element of global security and stability, but it has lost its unique value. The process of developing a new doctrine has become a forced reaction to world processes and economic problems within the state, cutting military expenses. The European Union is developing alternate vision of security problems, such as it is happening in China, India and Russia...
Germany plays an important and very constructive role in NATO, valued by Russia. In particular, Germany did not approve Ukraine’s and Georgia’s joining the organization, allowing relations of the Alliance and Russia to remain sustainable. But Russia has concerns over NATO’s claims for global role and global responsibility. NATO was formed during the Cold War to protect its members from foreign threats, but the Alliance has initiated attempts to regulate political and economic processes beyond its borders in the last years – bombing Yugoslavia, some events in Afghanistan. Other states are forced to silently express agreement or form a counterweight against NAO, some structure for international cooperation, for example, in Asia.
Prospects of anti-missile security remain unclear because it is obvious that they are only initiatives of the US or NATO. Russia considers it an attempt to drag negotiations and refusal to respond to Moscow’s proposals on collective security.
Wolfgang Richter, a leading researcher of the “Science and Politics” Foundation
The current anti-missile strategy is a NATO project, at least it is more of a NATO project than a US one. From the political aspect, it is certainly a NATO operation, doubtlessly. The current concept of the European missile shield has clear distinctions from what George Bush said in 2008: he used to talk about protection from intercontinental missiles threatening the US and the previous anti-missile system was based on bilateral agreements. It was purely a NATO operation, the US held bilateral negotiations with the Czech Republic and Poland to set the missile systems. The concept has been abandoned. The new concept adopted in 2010 is compulsory for all NATO states. It is a concept to protect from medium-range missiles, not intercontinental missiles.
One of the peculiarities of the European missile shield is cooperation with Russia. The approach looking ahead to cooperation with Russia is a good step. It is the first clear approach with Russia joining the common defense system.
But the project of the European missile shield has a set of unresolved issues concerning joint command or common command consisting of representatives of a certain side (whether Russian, US or European command) and criteria for launch of the anti-missile system. The problems need settling.
I see an opportunity in operative cooperation of two coordinated anti-missile systems: staff exchange to form trust, constant exchange of specialists, exchange of data in case of a threat and joint analysis of threats. I believe that progress could be reached here. Full agreement of views on functioning of the European missile shield and coinciding analysis of threats cannot be reached even among NATO members.
Patrick Keller, coordinator of foreign policy and security policy of the Konrad-Adenauer Fund
The Asian and Pacific Regions include many acting figures. It is not only NATO partners, such as South Korea or Australia, but also crisis outbreaks, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US switches stress to the East because it expects a crisis and wants to prevent it, the risk has almost vanished in Europe. At the same time, NATO remains the basis of security for Western states.
