What does NATO offer Russia, and what does Russia get in reality? Would Russia be willing to help NATO stay afloat by participating in its projects? What is the price of improving relations with its Western partners?

Military expert Aleksandr Khramchikhin thinks that the threat that Iran and North Korea allegedly pose, which is often discussed by supporters of Russia-NATO relations becoming closer, is a myth. He estimates the combat and political state of the alliance as low and does not see Russia in this bloc.

------------------------------

Aleksandr Khramchikhin

- military and political expert, Deputy Director of Military and Political Analytical Institute

- graduated from Moscow State University

- in 1990’s worked for Boris Yeltsin’s election campaign, as well as for election campaign of parties Our Home – Russia and Union of Right Forces

------------------------------

AK: NATO is clearly looking for a raison d'etre. The organization has been looking for it since 1991, when the enemy it was created to fight against ceased to exist. Until recently, eastward expansion was deemed as the only purpose for NATO's existence. It was sort of a goal in itself. But now the project is obviously no longer relevant. It brings more problems than benefits. So the next and the only existing option is to involve Russia. Unless this project gets underway in the nearest future, they will have to dissolve NATO.

RT: Why should Russia help NATO stay afloat by participating in its projects?

AK: Actually, I do not quite understand myself why Russia should participate in this. Of course, it would be useful for Russia to develop closer ties with NATO, if it provided real protection from China, because China is surely the main threat to us. But it’s obvious that at the moment NATO is in such a condition that it cannot provide any kind of protection from anything. It’s just unable to do it. That’s why it’s absolutely unclear why we should participate in projects which have no effect.

RT: Those who are trying to pull Russia into a joint missile defense project claim there will be a shield to protect both Russia and Europe from Iran and North Korea. But do these countries pose any threat to Russia and Europe?

AK: As for North Korea, the idea is so absurd that there is nothing to comment on. I don’t even know who would buy it. How can NATO protect Russia from North Korea? North Korea is in the Far East, and NATO is in Europe.

I don’t see how Iran can be a threat either. Firstly, Iran can’t mass-produce even conventional intermediate-range missiles, let alone missiles with nuclear warheads. And secondly, even if Iran gets such missiles, I have no clue as to why Iran should suddenly attack Russia or Europe.

The Iranian threat is nothing but an artificial geopolitical invention. And the threat coming from North Korea is sheer nonsense.

RT: Is there a possibility that perhaps NATO is talking about cooperation and joint projects in order to ruin Russian-Iranian relations and get Russia involved in a war with Iran?

AK: That is true to some extent. But that’s not the main thing. The main thing is that Russia is being involved in a NATO project on NATO’s terms. In other words, we start doing something we are not interested in, while NATO gets a new raison d’etre. NATO gets more funds – a lot more, and NATO bureaucrats roll in money again.

RT: What does Russia expect to receive from the deal? Russia is still only considering the offer and expects certain compromises. What are they?

AK: As far as I understand, we won’t get anything in return. All we get is a more confident relationship with the West, which is not bad, but that’s not enough.

RT: But there is some bargaining going on. For example, Russia hopes the United States will reconsider its plan to deploy a missile defense system in Europe.

AK: I don’t know what is there to change. So far, there is no missile shield in Europe. So, there is nothing to change. There is a project which has already been completely changed. Bush had one project, and now Obama has an altogether different project. However, in reality nothing has been done, and now the project is under discussion again. So, if Russia joins it, that will be a different project again.

RT: What is the purpose of the military reform which is currently conducted in Russia? Closer cooperation with NATO?

AK: No, the purpose of the military reform, if there is one, has nothing to do with cooperation. In fact, we never expected to have military cooperation with anybody. We don’t cooperate with anybody. We don’t have any real allies. We should clearly realize that.

Military reforms are always launched in connection with some events outside the country, because armed forces exist to counter external threats. The purpose of the current reform is not cooperation, especially with NATO, because it started after the war with Georgia when Russia-NATO relations were at their worst.

RT: What about the upcoming reform of NATO? Can Russia benefit from it?

AK: There aren't enough details so far and NATO hasn’t adopted its new concept yet.

RT: Why do some Russian politicians and experts advocate closer ties with NATO? What is their rationale?

AK: I repeat, hypothetically this cooperation could be a great advantage, if NATO could protect us from China. The problem with the people who make such statements is that they have no idea what NATO actually is. They continue to think of NATO as of a very well-organized political and military alliance the way it was in the Cold War times. And thus the majority of our people, including Kremlin officials, think NATO to be a terrible threat, while a small number of people, such people as Igor Yurgens, for example, think that, on the contrary, NATO is our protection and ally.

In reality, NATO is anything but a powerful and well-organized politico-military force. It is a purely bureaucratic structure, which has lost its raison d’etre and, what’s more important, its military potential. That’s why it doesn’t pose any threat, but neither can it be a good ally.

RT: How did Russia benefit from participating in such summits?

AK: There was no benefit, because in 99 percent of the cases summits of this kind are nothing but a talking shop.

RT: Russia’s relationship with Belarusian leader Lukashenko has taken a turn for the worse. What are the chances he might start drifting from Russia towards NATO?

AK: That’s something Lukashenko has long been blackmailing us with. He’s been very active in flirting with the West. But the West can’t accept him for ideological reasons.

RT: Do you think Ukraine has fully abandoned the idea to join NATO?

AK: NATO’s eastward expansion creates more problems than it solves. Having accepted 12 new countries between 1999 and 2009, NATO became much weaker in terms of its military capacity and has become much more difficult to manage. So if they go on and accept countries like Ukraine, which doesn’t have an effective army and where most of the people are against joining NATO, this is going to create even more problems, and perhaps these problems will be even more serious than those caused by the 12 recently-joined members put together.

­Nadezhda Kevorkova, RT