NATO, Russia, and the Vision of a Euro-Atlantic Security Community

Source: Chicago Council on Global Affairs

While there have been improvements in the U.S.-Russia relationship, relations are still stuck halfway between former enmity and aspired strategic partnership. Emphasis should be placed on transforming relations to make an inclusive security community in the region more likely. In addition to transforming strategic relations between the United States and Russia, historical reconciliation must be achieved between Russia and several NATO member countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Without either of these, there will be no inclusive security community in the Euro-Atlantic and thus no stable peace in this part of the world. The challenges are tremendous, but returning to the status quo is not a sustainable, longer-term option. Missile defense can act as a catalyst in improving relations.

The absence of an inclusive security community in the Euro-Atlantic twenty years after the end of the Cold War is something that ought not to be overlooked. It prevents NATO member states, Russia, and other countries in Europe from cooperating more fully to solve the existing security issues on the continent and to address common challenges and threats from outside the region. Moreover, plain dangers are not to be ruled out. The 1999 Kosovo conflict and the 2008 Russo-Georgian war should serve as clear warnings. In both cases, direct Russo-NATO/U.S. collisions were only narrowly avoided.

There are many reasons for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. The principal cause, however, is the deep-seated suspicion within Russia’s ruling circles about the strategic intentions of the United States and an equally strong, if not stronger, suspicion in several NATO countries, mostly in Central Europe, about the long-term geopolitical designs of Russia. As the past two decades have demonstrated, no amount of diplomatic communiqués about partnership and no amount of practical but limited cooperation has been sufficient to dispel that dual mistrust.

This is not to say that dialogue and joint activities are meaningless. They have improved mutual understanding on particular issues and helped achieve useful results. Russia, for example, has materially assisted NATO in transiting troops, goods, and material to and from Afghanistan. Yet the current pattern of NATO-Russia cooperation, as it has evolved over the past fifteen years, does not allow the sources of mutual mistrust to be addressed. Rather, it helps perpetuate a relationship that is stuck halfway between former enmity and the aspired strategic partnership. …