As NATO continues to expand,
Russia sees little cause for joy
Nowadays, NATO is in the middle of a confused debate about its identity and role. In particularly about how it will affect relations with Russia, the security of Ukraine and the Baltic States, and the peaceful integration of Ukraine into Europe. More and more voices are being raised in the United States against this policy and therefore my claim is: NATO must not expand any further towards Eastern Europe. NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The fundamental role of NATO is to ensure the freedom and security of its member countries. It is one of the foundations on which the stability and security of the Euro-Atlantic area depends and it serves as an essential forum for consultations on matters affecting the security interests of all its members. Its first task is to defend against any threat of aggression.

Russia has a very clear opinion on this debate. In the first place, NATO expansion is seen as a betrayal of unrealised promises made by the West in 1990-1991, and also as a sign that the West regards Russia not as an ally, but as a defeated enemy. Russians point out that Moscow agreed to withdraw troops from the former East Germany after NATO promised not to station its troops there. But now NATO has crossed over eastern Germany and ended up 500 miles closer to Russia, in Poland. In the second place, Russians fear that the inclusion of the Baltic States and Ukraine within NATO, will ultimately mean the loss of any Russian influence over these states

and the possibility that NATO will station troops within striking distance of Russia. Most Western diplomats say that these fears are paranoid, but the West's cannot reassure the Russians that no more countries will be included within the NATO in the future.

If NATO wants to expand any further to Eastern Europe, then first there must be a long process of international discussion, involving Russia, about what NATO is, and what the threats to security in the region really are and how they can be countered. But if NATO expansion were to aim at ultimate membership for the Baltic States and Ukraine, without Russia, that would be unacceptable. No Russian could possibly accept the presence of a potentially hostile NATO within striking distance of Smolensk--or what were the sacrifices for the Second World War.

NATO expansion raises two serious questions for the West. The first: Is fear of Russian aggression justified? The second: Will NATO membership make Russia's western neighbours, Ukraine and the Baltic States, more secure?
The answer to the first question is that a Russian military threat to Eastern Europe is unthinkable for the near future. Looking at the transformation of the Eastern European economies and political systems, Russia does not have the ability to bring serious (non)military pressure on these states. Russia is therefore not an immediate threat to Eastern Europe--so why the urgency about NATO expansion? This brings us to the second question, for a potential Russian threat to Ukraine and the Baltic States obviously does exist. NATO membership for Poland might radically decrease

Ukraine's security, because Moscow will increase pressure on Kiev to join a Russian- dominated military alliance. Western diplomats in Kiev are worried by this possibility.
The Germans, for example, have a curious mixture of attitudes. Both, nationalists as well as the liberals, want a row of NATO buffer states between themselves and the unstable former Soviet Union, even at the risk of making that instability much worse. This is, ofcourse, not an ethical position.

Finally, there is the force of bureaucratic lateness and interest politics. NATO is an immense international military-bureaucratic organisation that is loved by many intellectuals, journalists, and analysts. Consciously or unconsciously, all these people have a strong interest in keeping their jobs by finding a new and continuing role for NATO; and if they can't agree on such a role, then expansion will have to serve as a substitute.

All these factors together add up to immensely powerful political reasons for NATO expansion. But these reasons are extremely weak in terms of the real interests for both the West and Russia's neighbours. Another important aspect in the debate over NATO expansion is China. Both Russian and Western policymakers are more and more aware that it would be very foolish for either Russia or the West to let the issue of NATO expansion in Europe wreck the chances of future co-operation with the Far East.
Especially at a time when China's future is looking so uncertain, and when so many potential Chinese threats to Far Eastern security and territory exist.

Russian policy therefore tries to influence NATO by co-operating with it, for example, by joining the Partnership for Peace. An additional reason for this policy is that although the anger of Russian diplomats over NATO behaviour is real, more serious and less paranoid Russians do realise that NATO is not a direct threat of attack on Russia. Indeed, the Western alliance's display of weakness, cowardice, and internal divisions over Bosnia has diminished Russian fears of NATO as an organisation.

It is therefore very well possible that over the next few years NATO expansion, and the Russian response to it, will be finessed, to reduce any damage to NATO- Russian relations. And also to reduce any threat of greater instability in the former Soviet Union. Alternatively, that expansion will be delayed until the emergence of new global issues makes the whole question seem unimportant to both Russia and the West. There is however, also a real danger that under a new, more nationalist Russian government, and a more hard-line Republican Administration in the United States, disputes over the issue will get out of control, with consequences that cannot be foreseen.
[pic]
Words: 1012