Moscow’s cooperation with NATO one step closer?
Published: 18 September, 2009, 19:54
TAGS: Arms, Military, NATO, Russia, Politics, Europe, USA
As the situation around the US anti-missile defense project develops, Fred Weir from the Christian Science Monitor comments on the opportunities for further developing the relations between Russia and NATO.
“I definitely think that there’s a window of opportunity here,” Weir says. The situation around the security architecture in Europe and the world has bothered people worldwide over the past few years and Weir believes that “steps need to be taken to bring Russia more into cooperation with Europe, with NATO.”
“I think that especially when you have something like this decision to shelve that missile defense scheme in Poland and the Czech Republic, that’s got to be a signal for a wider attempt to redress that situation.”
Weir is sure that Moscow’s only way now is to take a stab at cooperating with NATO, as there is a “common ground in a scheme that would defend civilization from rogue nations or terrorist groups that have ballistic missile technology and nuclear weapons.”
However, Weir notes that if we have a global anti-missile shield that is controlled strictly by the Pentagon “it’s going to leave not just Moscow, but a lot of other people feeling a little uneasy.”
18.09.2009, 19:21
8 comments
US-Russia thorn removed – but will there be another one?One of the main sticking points for Russia appears to have been resolved, as the US is suspending its plans for a missile defense shield in Europe. But could another one emerge, considering the renewed US security plan? Medvedev-Obama |
18.09.2009, 20:32
5 comments
“Iranians believe missile shield is against Russia”Iranians do not really believe the US feels threatened by the Islamic Republic, Seyed Mohammad Marandi from the University of Tehran told RT. |
I am finding the reasoning somewhat disorienting. Is it really the only way? The only way to move forward is to move Russia towards NATO, and I am assuming NATO framework of world view. This would hardly be the solution. Cooperation with NATO, definitely. This is a great opporunity. But for what purpose? NATO is a military alliance. As an alliance, it is selective as to who it wants to protect, and who should stay outside this security cartel. Since the Cold War, NATO tried consistently to redefine United Nations. These attempts at redefining took various forms, bombings and invasions, sanctions and starvations. The attempts were clearly aimed at making UN irrelevant, except as a mopping mechanisms to NATO operations. But it was always less then clear how will NATO transform into a global security strategy. At least UN, with all its imperfections, provided for the platform where, publicly, members of UN SC had to take a position on Resolutions, advancing or blocking initiatives. This is still actually the only way to solve conflicts today. Veto simply allows for a problem to be delayed until there is a meeting of the minds. NATO undermined this process, leaving global security worse off. Russia and others, should try to engage NATO in recognizing that it cannot prevail by force, except against smaller, less defended targets. But the price of such attrition by force is high. The diminishing security, barriers to free trade, and the enormous costs of sustaining the occupied, semi-occupied or tribute-managed entities. NATO is thinking only force. What can Russia do to insure at least European security, for the time being? It failed in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia and then Georgia. How many more failures does it take to create a true guarantor of peace, not petty exploitator of ethnic strife? The cost in lives and treasure to everyone is just too high.