­During his big press conference, Dmitry Medvedev said he will not back a resolution on Syria if it is similar to the document that the UN Security Council adopted on Libya. He said that Resolution 1973, which Russia chose not to veto, was for all practical purposes violated by other Security Council member states, particularly the USA, France, and Great Britain. As we know, Russia and China abstained, which allowed others to pass, with a majority of votes, a document that paved the way to NATO's large-scale military operation in Libya.

Thus, our president has admitted that Russia's abstaining from voting on the Libya resolution actually opened the door to military action instead of protecting civilian population, as the initial plan had been. Also, he said that no similar resolution can be passed on Syria, because Russia was essentially deceived. Apart from that, Russia's leader said we were closely monitoring the situation with the American missile defense system in Europe, waiting to be given guarantees of it being not aimed at Russia. That means, the missile defense system must never target Russia's nuclear potential.

In this connection, a question is bound to arise: do we have any reasons at all to hope for legal guarantees from NATO or to trust the West on this matter? The fact is that our president himself admits that the resolution we allowed to pass was violated. Essentially, we were cheated.

One can also say that Russia has been cheated more than once. For example, we were cheated in the early 1990s, when Western leaders (figures like Helmut Kohl, James Baker, and John Major) dropped hints and even said directly that if the USSR agreed to the reunification of Germany, NATO, as James Baker said, "would not expand one inch to the east". Later, Gorbachev would often remember those promises, which had never been documented. NATO states, however, had no intention to keep them. Year 1994 saw the start of a program for the expansion of the alliance, which by this time has come right to our borders.

After that, we were assured that no military bases would be established in new bloc members. Deployment of radars and interceptor missiles in Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, and other countries will automatically mean violation of the Russia-NATO Founding Act signed in 1997. Essentially, this means that the USA and NATO have challenged the second set of political guarantees provided by the act. That's because they are about to deploy missile defense bases in new NATO member states. After that, we were cheated again (along with the rest of the world), when the USA claimed to have reasons to attack Iraq since the latter allegedly had weapons of mass destruction. Finally, NATO cheated us once again when it defied the resolution on Libya that we had allowed to pass.

Another question bound to arise here is what makes us think that NATO is going to keep its declarations and promises after it secures our consent for the deployment of missile defense installations in Eastern Europe? The thing is that verbal promises (a.k.a. political guarantees) become worthless sometimes even before the incumbent US administration (the one that gave them) leaves office. And when a new administration comes in, the new president definitely doesn’t consider himself bound by any verbal agreements concluded by his predecessor.

As for legal guarantees, the USA is never going to give them, because the US Congress will never ratify such a treaty. In foreign policy, Washington always follows the principle of keeping its hands free in all matters related to national security. This is why we shouldn’t look up at the USA, waiting for any political or legal guarantees from it; we should state clearly the price the USA will have to pay in case it chooses to develop its national missile defense in a way that Russia regards as a threat to it security. I mean, we should clearly quote the price that the American administration will have to pay on the international arena. That, for example, can be Russia's position on Iran or on Afghanistan-bound transit of American and NATO cargoes through Russia.

As a matter if fact, there are quite a few areas where the USA depends greatly on Russia's support. I think that we must make the following very clear: if we are partners in the “reset,” Russia's interests must be taken into account too. And if the USA understands partnership as the “free-hand principle” (Russia's going to swallow everything, isn’t it?), then we are out.

­Aleksey Pushkov

­The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.