Slides on the topic of NATO combat training. NATO, advance east
Slide 1
Institute of Economics, Management and Law (Kazan) Faculty of Economics Presentation on the discipline “WORLD ECONOMY AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS” Topic: “NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)” Students D101u department “Finance and Credit” Ryazanova M.V. Teacher: Karmalskaya E.M.Slide 2
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization (English) OTAN - Organization du traité de l "Atlantique Nord (French) NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Russian) NATO countries on the world map Official languages NATO are English and French
Slide 3
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an alliance designed to protect not only the power of a particular country, but also the values \u200b\u200bthat this power is placed in the service of. NATO does not protect state sovereignty or someone’s geopolitical interests, but a certain type of human culture and civilization.
Slide 4
In April 1949, after negotiations with the United States and Canada on the creation of a single North Atlantic Alliance, the Washington Treaty on Joint Defense was signed. It was joined by: Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Norway, Portugal and the USA. 1948 March five west European countries: Belgium, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France signed the Brussels Treaty and created a common defense system. NATO does not have its own armed forces. All countries participating in military organization NATO contributes its forces and equipment, which together constitute the Alliance's integrated military structure. B The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 in Washington State. Iceland is the only NATO member that does not have regular armed forces; this was one of the conditions for the country's entry into the organization. In Iceland there is only Coast security(BOHR). It was also decided to train Icelandic volunteers at bases in Norway to participate in NATO peacekeeping missions. Since July 1966, France has withdrawn from the NATO military organization, remaining a participant in the political structure of the North Atlantic Treaty. In 2009 she returned to all abandoned structures.
Slide 5
Four more European states: Greece, Türkiye, Germany, Spain 1952. and 1982 In Poland Hungary Czech Republic March 12, 1999 Latvia Lithuania Estonia Slovakia Slovenia Romania Bulgaria Joined NATO Now there are already 26 countries in NATO and applications from other countries to join this international organization are being considered. 2004 B
Slide 6
Joined West Germany. The Saarland reunited with Germany in 1957, and on October 3, 1990 - a united Germany. NATO NATO member countries Greece From 1974 to 1980, Greece did not take part in the NATO military organization due to tense relations with another member of the bloc - Turkey. Does not participate in the NATO military organization. Germany Spain
Slide 7
It was adopted on October 4, 1953 by the North Atlantic Council as the official symbol of the North Atlantic Alliance, after which a flag-raising ceremony was held in Paris. The NATO emblem is a white compass on a dark blue background. The circle symbolizes unity and cooperation, and the compass rose represents a common path to peace.
Slide 8
NATO headquarters - political and administrative center The North Atlantic Alliance, where the main political decision-making body of NATO, the North Atlantic Council, is permanently located. NATO NATO Headquarters The headquarters is located in Belgium, in the north-eastern part of Brussels, on Boulevard Léopold III, 1110 Brussels, Belgium. It houses delegations of member countries, liaison and interaction bureaus or diplomatic missions of partner countries.
Slide 9
The highest political body of NATO which consists of representatives of all member states and holds its meetings under the chairmanship of the NATO Secretary General. The North Atlantic Council may meet at the level of foreign ministers and heads of state and government. Council decisions are made unanimously. In the period between sessions, the functions of the NATO Council are performed by the NATO Permanent Council, which includes representatives of all member countries of the bloc with the rank of ambassadors. North Atlantic Council (NATO Council)
Slide 10
Military Planning Committee Since December 1966, the highest military-political body of the organization has become the Military Planning Committee, which meets twice a year at its sessions at the level of defense ministers, although formally it consists of permanent representatives. In the period between sessions, the functions of the Military Planning Committee are performed by the Standing Military Planning Committee, which includes representatives of all member countries of the bloc with the rank of ambassadors.
Slide 11
The Secretary General is the chief official of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, having the status of an international civil servant. The Secretary General is responsible for leading the Alliance's consultation and decision-making process and ensuring that decisions are implemented. NATO SECRETARY GENERAL Anders Fogh Rasmussen becomes Secretary General statesman NATO member country. Appointed by member countries for a four-year term. Countries nominate candidates for the position and hold informal diplomatic consultations to select a suitable candidate. The final decision is made when consensus is reached on one candidate. At the end of his four-year term of office, the Secretary-General may be asked to extend that term for a further year.
Slide 12
Country Military Budget ($) Number of Armed Forces Tanks Air Force Navy Poison. weapons NATO member countries USA France Great Britain 636000000000 59600330000 59300000000 1 426 700 389 000 640000 11500 4000 636 7140 780 527 5681 496 120 Yes (2100 b .g.) Yes (350 b.g.) Yes (200 b.g. ) Germany Italy 45200000000 37060000000 325 000 112 000 2 521 1230 1404 564 265 158 - - Turkey Canada 22066134000 18695342000 613000 145000 3363 11 14 562 370 370 240 - - Spain 17700000000 147000 552 315 215 -
Slide 13
NATO member countries Netherlands Poland Greece 12000000000 11791000000 7934000000 74.100 12200 177600 152,236 1,723 17 45,418 55 122,224 - - - Norway Belgium 57250 00000 4000000000 230000 39 420 165 132 142 120 44 22 - - Portugal Denmark 3497800000 3271600000 75000 21 400 73 238 141 108 - 45 - - Romania 2900000000 90000 315 13 - Czech Republic 2170000000 12000 175 129 - - 48
Exercise: Based on the proposed material (you also used it to identify the reasons for the creation of NATO), or Internet sources, answer the questions in writing:
1) How many countries are currently part of NATO? List the main ones.
2) What bodies function within this organization?
3) What are the main activities of NATO?
NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North Atlantic Alliance(English) NorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization, NATO) – military-political bloc, uniting most European countries, the USA and Canada.
Founded on April 4, 1949 in the USA, with the aim of protecting Europe from Soviet influence. Then 12 countries became NATO member states: the USA, Canada, Iceland, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Italy and Portugal. It is a “transatlantic forum” for allied countries to consult on any issues affecting the vital interests of its members, including events that could threaten their security. Currently, 29 countries are members of NATO. The military expenditures of all NATO members together account for more than 70 percent of the global total.
Already after the Yalta agreements (1943), a situation arose in which the foreign policy of the victorious countries in the Second World War was more focused on the future post-war balance of power in Europe and the world, and not on the current situation. The result of this policy was the actual division of Europe into western and eastern territories, which were destined to become the basis for future springboards of influence of the USA and the USSR. In 1947-1948 the start of the so-called The “Marshall Plan”, according to which huge funds from the United States were to be invested in European countries destroyed by the war. Thus, 17 countries that received assistance from the United States were integrated into a single political and economic space, which determined one of the prospects for rapprochement. At the same time, political and military rivalry between the USSR and the USA for European space was growing. On the part of the USSR, it consisted of intensifying support communist parties throughout Europe, and especially in the “Soviet” zone. Of particular importance were the events in Czechoslovakia in February 1948, which led to the resignation of the current President E. Benes and the seizure of power by the Communists, as well as in Romania and Bulgaria, the blockade West Berlin(1948-1949), deterioration of the socio-economic situation in other European countries. They allowed the right-wing political regimes of European countries not included in the zone of USSR occupation to develop a common position, rethink the problem of their security, identifying a new “common enemy.”
In March 1948, the Brussels Treaty was concluded between Belgium, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France, which later formed the basis of the “Western European Union” (WEU). The Brussels Treaty is considered to be the first step towards the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance. In parallel, secret negotiations were conducted between the USA, Canada and Great Britain on the creation of a union of states based on common goals and an understanding of the prospects for joint development, different from the UN, which would be based on their civilizational unity. Detailed negotiations between European countries and the United States and Canada on the creation of a single union soon followed. All these international processes have ended signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, introducing a system of common defense of twelve countries. Among them: Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, USA, France. The agreement was aimed at creating common system security. The parties pledged to collectively defend whoever was attacked. The agreement between the countries finally came into force on August 24, 1949 after ratification by the governments of the countries that acceded to the North Atlantic Treaty. An international organizational structure was created to control huge military forces in Europe and around the world.
Thus, in fact, from its founding, NATO was focused on countering the Soviet Union and, later, member countries Warsaw Pact(since 1955).
NATO's declared goals relate exclusively to security, freedom and democracy. This organization, created for defense purposes, aims to maintain stability throughout the world, resolve geopolitical unrest, protect democracy, human rights and borders established after the Second World War.
Summarizing the reasons for the emergence of NATO, it is first of all worth mentioning economic, political, social; a large role was played by the desire to ensure joint economic and political security, awareness of potential threats and risks for “Western” civilization. At the heart of NATO, first of all, is the desire to prepare for a new possible war, to protect itself from its monstrous risks. It, however, also determined the strategies of the military policy of the USSR and the countries of the Soviet bloc.
Since the mid-90s of the last century, in connection with the end of " cold war"and the disappearance of the main source of threats - Soviet Union, NATO began to implement the policy “ open doors" in a relationship former countries socialist camp, expanding to the east - ever closer to the borders of Russia. The justification for this expansion was the conclusion made during a special NATO study about the emergence of a need and a unique opportunity to improve security in the Euro-Atlantic region without renewing the demarcation line
· act as the basis for stability in the Euro-Atlantic region;
· serve as a forum for consultations on security issues;
· deter and defend against any threat of aggression against any NATO member state;
· contribute to effective conflict prevention and actively participate in crisis management;
· promote the development of comprehensive partnerships, cooperation and dialogue with other countries in the Euro-Atlantic region.
However, it should be noted that in recent decades NATO has been using very dubious methods to achieve its goals. Thus, in 1995 and 1999, the armed forces of the alliance were used on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and at the moment the phrase peacekeeping bombings has become simply a catchphrase.
The North Atlantic Alliance is showing interest, including in the countries of Central and Central Asia, Middle East and Africa. NATO's traditional political opponents are Russia and China.
The task was issued by S.V. Kolosova.
The United States and its main European military ally NATO long years were the main opponents of the USSR, but with the fall Berlin Wall and with the collapse of the Union, they had a real chance to expand the sphere of their political and military influence not only in the East of Europe, but also in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Georgia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan - these states kindly provided their territories for the deployment of US military bases, and the political course of these powers provides for close political and military cooperation with “overseas” friends. Obviously, the main goal of the Americans and NATO is to place their tactical, offensive missiles as close as possible to Russian territory.
But while the US and NATO are doing well with the Caucasus and Central Asia, they have problems with the East of Europe. Belarus is a reliable ally of Russia, and, despite some disagreements, Moscow can be sure that Minsk will never give the green light to the deployment of foreign troops on its territory (obviously, this is why Lukashenko is so hated in the West). Ukraine after the Orange Revolution was inclined to station NATO military units on its territory, and, moreover, Kyiv sought to find common ground with Brussels in order to become a full member of the alliance. With the coming to power of V. Yanukovych, the political vector changed towards Russia, and now NATO is having problems, as Kyiv strives for military friendship with Moscow, confirmation of this course are the agreements signed exactly a year ago between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine in Kharkov.
Obviously, this state of affairs cannot fully satisfy either the United States or NATO. In search of a way out of the situation and a radical change in the military balance in the region in its favor, the answer came, one might say, somewhat unexpectedly, from Moldova. This state practically consists of two parts - Transnistria, which is fully supported by Russia, and Moldova, which seeks to join Romania and thus become part of a united Europe. It is this desire that Brussels uses to its advantage. Chisinau is ready to do anything to get to Europe, and for a small promise to solve the problem, the Moldovan government is ready to open its borders to NATO and the United States.
Expert opinion
Geodetic justification for NATO's expansion to the east
In 2011, a national system for determining the location of the desired or studied object (Moldpos) using the global satellite navigation system GNSS will be created in Moldova. To do this, 10-12 special stations will be deployed on the territory of Moldova, which will be combined into a network and will be able to supply the necessary data around the clock, non-stop. The project is estimated at 1 million euros. Funds for its implementation are provided in the form of a grant from Norway. The project is designed for 2 years.
Commentary by a rocket surveyor
Location of any object earth's surface can be determined in various ways. Different countries are developing their systems in the form of a GGS (state geodetic network) - certain points on the earth's surface, the location of which is described in special catalogs. The contents of the catalogs are top secret. Initially, this system was developed to determine the shape and mathematical model of the Earth's ellipsoid. Subsequently, with the advent of high-tech rocket and space weapons, the GGS system began to serve as a reference geodetic network for the orientation of strategic missiles. IN different countries ah, they used their own mathematical model of the earth. In the USSR, the Pulkovo ellipsoid model was used. In the US and other countries, an ellipsoid model called WGS 84 (World Geodetic System 84) is used. There is a certain difference between the two models (from several meters to 100m in different parts of the Earth). This gives a different interpretation of the coordinates of the same point on the earth's surface. With the advent of missile weapons in the USSR and the USA, these models began to be used for missile guidance. It was the difference in systems that caused the missile guidance error. The United States was the first to realize this, deciding to link all other countries where geo-strategic interests are pursued to its coordinates. Accordingly, the first wave of expansion of the United States and NATO began as the deployment of the WGS 84 system on the territory of these countries. Speaking in simple language- there was a geodetic seizure of lands and entire countries. 5 years before Romania joined NATO, a similar system for determining coordinates was deployed. Consequently, the deployment of this system in a particular country serves as an indicator of NATO membership. It is also known that the flight trajectories of strategic cruise missiles are calculated in advance. Correction zones are also developed for each flight path. A cruise missile, flying through the correction zone, refines the coordinates of its location and corrects its trajectory. The emergence of the GPS system (GNSS) and the Russian analogue of GLONASS opens up new technological opportunities not only for cartography and cadastre, but also for strategic weapons in the first place. Such systems are camouflaged as civilian projects and financed through 3 countries. Consequently, the deployment of cruise missile correction systems at the final stage of flight should be considered as an unfriendly act towards neighboring countries and as a means of potential aggression, at the same time as one of the elements of strategic weapons. What’s most interesting is that the United States has so far managed to hide it from the International Community the new kind aggression – GEODETIC AGGRESSION, therefore it is not possible to resist this type of expansion with legal international instruments. It should be noted that Russia is lagging behind in this area, the GLONASS system is not deployed abroad, and there are even elements of GNSS GEODETIC AGGRESSION on the territory of RUSSIA itself. Such a system for determining coordinates positions Moldova among a number of unfriendly countries in relation to Transnistria, Ukraine, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and Russia in the first place. Thus, Moldova, having become a technological hostage to the GNSS system, essentially exposes its territory to retaliatory attacks from these countries (even terrorist ones).
Strategic cruise missiles of the USSR and the Russian Federation are aimed with an accuracy of 30-100 m. This accuracy is considered sufficient to destroy strategic targets. The absolute accuracy of determining coordinates in the new system is 5 mm in three planes. Taking this into account, any points on the territory of Moldova, Transnistria, Ukraine, Russia, after the introduction of this system into operation, will become potential targets of NATO cruise missiles with an accuracy of 1 m and high-precision bombs with an accuracy of 5 mm. Technological warfare and double standards are the official long-term military strategy of the United States and NATO. A GNSS system deployed on the territory of neutral countries should be considered a violation of the neutrality and sovereignty of these countries, a means of putting pressure on government structure these countries. Act good will In an effort to maintain its neutrality, Moldova would benefit from Moldova's entry into the GLONASS coverage area. In this case, Moldova would indeed retain its military-technological neutral status.
Commentary by a military psychologist
The author of the article in the early 2000s studied the military strategies of different countries and NATO inclusive at the Academy of General. Headquarters of Romania (King Carol I). Technologies and planning of psychological operations within NATO operations. It is known that NATO's long-term planning covers a period of 30-50 years (starting point 1994 - PFP program). Thus, Moldova voluntarily exposed its territory to potential strategic bombings from both the Alliance and Russia. This leads to the conclusion that NATO allows territorial disputes to be resolved through military operations in Eastern Europe. The project is camouflaged as a civil cadastral project, which will additionally provide comprehensive information about the current economic potential of the country, each enterprise, manager, budget, GDP of the country as a whole, each owner and his financial capabilities. This project should also be considered as a global project of the US NSA to implement global information control, as part of the globalization strategy. It should be noted that in 2010, the Alliance for European Integration already provided one of the NATO partners with personal data for each resident of the country. Thus, NATO’s global strategy completes the second stage of “passive” expansion in third world countries, which will be followed by a political stage (if necessary, a military operation in Transnistria, but more on that in another article).
To view the presentation with pictures, design and slides, download its file and open it in PowerPoint on your computer.
Text content of presentation slides: History in the faces Lenin, for his part, respected and emphasized not only military, but mainly organizational talents ///////. It was clear, however, that this sometimes caused some discontent and jealousy among Lenin’s collaborators. Lenin probably appreciated the revolutionary temperament /////// and remembered its role in preparing and carrying out the seizure of power in October 1917; in addition, everyone knew very well that //////// actually created the Red Army and, thanks to his tireless energy and fiery temperament, ensured its victory over the white movement. “In 1918, security service units consisted of sailors and Latvians. One such sailor entered the office ///// drunk. He made a remark, the sailor responded with a three-story prisoner. ////// grabbed a revolver and, having killed the sailor on the spot with several shots, immediately fell in an epileptic fit.” Boris Bazhanov, who worked in the secretariat ///// gave a very correct assessment of his character: “The main character traits ////// are firstly, secrecy, secondly, cunning, thirdly, vindictiveness. Never ////// does not share his innermost plans with anyone. He very rarely shares his thoughts and impressions with others. He is generally silent unless necessary. He is very cunning, has second thoughts in everything, and when he speaks, he never speaks sincerely. "The insult never forgives, it will be remembered for ten years and in the end it will be dealt with" minister, then minister-chairman of the Provisional Government (1917). In June 1918, Kerensky, under the guise of a Serbian officer, left the former borders. Russian Empire. He died on June 11, 1970 at his home in New York from cancer at the age of 89. Local Russian Orthodox Church refused to perform the funeral service for him, considering him to be the culprit of the fall of Russia. The body was transported to London and buried in the Putney Vale Cemetery, which does not belong to any faith. According to our concepts, it is not the land that should own a person, but a person should own the land....Until the labor of himself is applied to the land High Quality, labor is free, not forced, our land will not be able to withstand competition with the land of our neighbors, and the land is Russia. On March 21, 1917, A. Kerensky, the new Minister of Justice, met in Tsarskoe Selo with the arrested...... Later Kerensky remarked about his interlocutor: “A disarmingly charming man!” After the second meeting with the Sovereign, Kerensky admitted: “But ..... is far from stupid, contrary to what we thought about him.” Kerensky was fascinated by the friendliness naturally radiating from ...., and several times he realized that he called him: “...... ..." "Don’t think about what I said,” and he grinned slyly, “you still won’t understand what’s going on here. But just remember: as long as I’m alive, then they’re alive, too.” they’ll decide on me - well, then you’ll find out what will happen, you’ll see,” he added mysteriously (1859-1924) - Russian politician, leader of the Union of October 17 party (Chairman); State Duma third and fourth convocations. One of the leaders February Revolution Emigrated in 1920 Died in Yugoslavia in 1924 Soviet politician and statesman, revolutionary. Member of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) One of the organizers of the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, execution royal family and decossackization (due to which hundreds of thousands of people died in the Don and Kuban) Bolsheviks, according to whom they did not give a damn about 90% of the Russian people, as long as 10% lived to see the world revolution. On November 14, 1924, the Yekaterinburg City Council decided to assign this city named after the revolutionary, first chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Viktor Mikhailovich Chernov (1873, 1952, New York, USA) Leader of the party formed in 1902. He categorically did not accept the October Revolution. October 25 at 12 noon at the Congress of Peasant Deputies Western Front called for a fight against the Bolshevik government At the Constituent Assembly on January 5, 1918..... was elected its chairman. During World War II he participated in the French Resistance Movement. Soon after the liberation of France he left for the USA. ….. owns numerous works on philosophy, political economy, history and sociology. Among those expelled in the summer - autumn of 1922 (abroad and to remote areas of the country), the largest number were university teachers and people in general humanitarian professions. Of the 225 people: doctors - 45, professors, teachers - 41, economists, agronomists, cooperators - 30, writers - 22, lawyers - 16, engineers - 12, politicians - 9, religious figures - 2, students - 34. government company RSFSR on the expulsion of people disliked by the authorities abroad in September and November 1922. “Philosophical steamer” “Emigrant steamer” “Professorial steamer” “We will cleanse Russia for a long time... “The intelligentsia is not the brain of the nation, but shit,” wrote V. Lenin at one time... Fyodor Ivanovich Chaliapin (February 13, 1873, Kazan - 12 April 1938, Paris) Russian opera singer (high bass), soloist of the Bolshoi Theater, People's Artist of the Republic (1918-1927, the title was returned in 1991) in 1927, by a resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, he was deprived of the title of People's Artist and the right to return to the USSR; this was justified because he did not want to “return to Russia and serve the people whose title of artist was awarded to him” or, according to other sources, because he allegedly donated money to monarchist emigrants. In 1984, his son achieved the reburial of his ashes in Moscow at the Novodevichy cemetery.
Attached files
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded on April 4, 1949 as a military-political bloc. One of its goals is to provide deterrence or protection against any form of aggression against the territory of any NATO member state. In contrast to NATO, the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO) was created in 1955 as a military-political union of the socialist countries of Eastern Europe with the leading role of the Soviet Union. The confrontation between the two blocs continued until the cessation of the existence of the Department of Internal Affairs and the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
The beginning of perestroika in the USSR and the emergence of new political thinking in foreign policy Moscow marked the end of bloc confrontation in Europe. The end of the Cold War posed certain problems for NATO, since after the dissolution of the Warsaw Department and the collapse of the USSR, there was no longer any sense in the existence of a military-political alliance in the absence of a threat from the East. Having lost its main functional mission, the North Atlantic Alliance began the process of adaptation to new international conditions.
After the dissolution of the Warsaw Department and the USSR, in conditions when Russia’s interests in the field of national security were not realized and clearly defined, Russian politicians and experts expressed the opinion that after the liquidation of the Warsaw Department and the USSR, the North Atlantic Alliance should either dissolve itself or turn into a political organization. However, despite the end of the Cold War, relations between the Russian Federation and NATO developed quite unstable.
At the beginning of the 1990s. The Russian leadership was aimed at rapprochement with the West and integration into Western international organizations, and no significant problems arose in relations between the Russian Federation and NATO.
In general, during this period there was an optimistic mood in Russia, suggesting that there had been a significant turn in Russia’s relations with NATO, and there were illusory hopes that NATO would transform due to the absence of obvious external threats.
However, it gradually became clear that this would not happen, especially after the start of the process of NATO expansion to the East.
In 1994, the leadership of the bloc decided to admit new members to NATO, and the North Atlantic Alliance began interacting with partner countries within the framework of the Partnership for Peace and Mediterranean Dialogue cooperation programs. The Russian Federation itself has been a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace program since 1994, which was subsequently joined by many other former Soviet republics.
In May 1995, an individual partnership plan was developed for Russia within NATO, and the Russian Federation moved to a more in-depth level of cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance. Although at first Moscow believed that the Partnership for Peace program would only provide for cooperation between the countries of Central and of Eastern Europe with NATO, and not their membership in the organization. Russian experts and military personnel perceived the alliance’s partnership programs as a kind of “hallway” or “waiting room” where candidate countries would remain indefinitely.
However, later the opinion prevailed among the American political elite that NATO expansion should occur even if the Russian side opposed it. This position was explained by the fact that the sovereign states of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have the right to decide independently which military-political organizations they should join. It is not surprising that after such statements, Russia’s position on the expansion of the alliance to the East became tougher. Naturally, the Russian Federation began to perceive NATO’s advance towards Russia’s borders exclusively negatively. It should be noted that neither the United States, nor other NATO members, nor candidate countries have shown adequate attention to Russia's concerns. Of particular concern in Russia were the prospects for NATO membership of the republics former USSR. Moreover, it is believed that it was the leaders of Eastern European countries who managed to convince then US President Bill Clinton of the advisability of NATO expansion to the East.
At the first stage, it was about the accession of the countries of the so-called Visegrad Group of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia to the North Atlantic Alliance (the latter failed to enter NATO during the first wave of expansion), which took place in 1999.
With appointment to the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs Russian Federation EAT. Primakov in 1996, Russia’s national interests became more clearly defined, the post-Soviet space was declared priority direction foreign policy, the official concept of multipolarity appeared, and the approach of the military-political bloc to the borders of the Russian Federation was assessed as a potential threat. Thus, Russia made it clear that NATO expansion in the post-Soviet space is an absolutely unacceptable scenario for Moscow.
At the same time, Russia put forward the idea that the basis of European security should be not NATO, but the OSCE. Such proposals began to acquire particular relevance after the Budapest Summit, at which it was decided to transform the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE, founded in 1975) into a permanent international organization. However, such an initiative from Moscow remained unrealized.
Relations between the Russian Federation and NATO stabilized somewhat in 1997 after the conclusion of the Founding Act on mutual relations, cooperation and security between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has become the legal basis for interaction between the parties. This document contained an important statement today (which is constantly recalled by both sides): “NATO and Russia do not consider each other as opponents. The common goal of NATO and Russia remains to overcome the remnants of previous confrontations and rivalries and strengthen mutual trust and cooperation.”
During the same period of time, the first advisory body, the Permanent Joint Council (PJC) Russia NATO, was created to provide "a mechanism for consultation, coordination to the maximum extent possible, as necessary, for joint decisions and joint actions regarding security issues of common concern" . The Founding Act sets out the main areas of interaction (in total, 18 aspects of interaction were identified in the document): European security, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, resolution of regional conflicts and peacekeeping.
Important integral part The Founding Act was a set of mutual obligations of the parties to exercise restraint in the military field. Such obligations include the alliance's guarantees, recorded in the document, not to deploy nuclear weapons or large groupings of troops on the territory of new NATO members and not to use former military bases of the Warsaw Department for their own purposes.
Some liberal Russian experts criticized this document, pointing out that the Russian leadership, by signing the Founding Act, tried to minimize the damage from the process of NATO expansion to the East, opposing this process with all its might. Instead, in their opinion, it was necessary to build a model of cooperation with the alliance, as well as use to the full potential of those sections of the document where we're talking about on Russia's interaction with NATO. However, subsequently the alliance’s relations with Russia began to deteriorate. Two years later, in 1999, the 50th anniversary summit of NATO member countries took place in Washington, at which a new Strategic Concept of the bloc was adopted, which actually legitimized “humanitarian intervention” and NATO’s withdrawal from the limits of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The alliance has now secured the right to use force beyond its borders. In Russia, these decisions were received with serious concern. In addition, at this summit, three countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic) formally became members of the North Atlantic Alliance.
A memorable episode of this period was the U-turn of the plane of Russian Foreign Minister E.M. Primakov over the Atlantic Ocean, after he learned about the start of the NATO operation against Yugoslavia. Thus, by the end of the 1990s. It became obvious to the Russian political elites that the unilateral actions and policies of the United States and NATO negatively affect Russia’s foreign policy position. The actions of NATO countries under the leadership of the United States in the Balkans without seriously involving Russia in resolving this crisis have raised many questions about the true plans and intentions of NATO, especially its intervention in the collapse Federal Republic Yugoslavia, violating its sovereignty.
Thus, 1999 became an important milestone in NATO relations in the Russian Federation, since after that anti-NATO and anti-Western rhetoric began to dominate Russian foreign policy.
The events of September 11, 2001 in the United States and the emergence of international terrorism as a unifying threat caused a significant warming of first Russian-American and then Russian-NATO relations, which was formally enshrined in the Rome Agreements signed between Russia and NATO in 2002.
The Declaration “Russia-NATO Relations: New Quality” was signed in Rome, and thus began new stage interaction between Moscow and Brussels. This document identified nine areas of cooperation in which Russia and NATO agreed to work together in the G20 format as equal partners on the basis of the NATO Russia Council (NRC), which replaced the PCA. In the new council, Russia had the opportunity to participate in discussions about decisions made at an early stage, if they concern its interests.
It was stated that instead of the previously existing 19+1 formula, the G20 format is being used, and the difference between them lies not in the mathematical formula, but in the special relationship between Russia and NATO.
Quite indicative in this regard is the response of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin “Why not?” to the question of British journalist David Frost: “Will Russia join NATO?”, which indicated a softening of the Russian position towards the military bloc.
After the start of the NATO operation in Afghanistan in August 2003, the Russian Federation began to assist the alliance in ensuring the transit of non-military cargo to this country. Of course, after the events of September 11, 2001, in the wake of rapprochement with the United States, the Russian leadership did not object to the American and then NATO operations in Afghanistan. In those years, it was perceived as a fight against terrorists who had received refuge in this country, and as a factor preventing the spread of religious extremism in Central Asia. However, as Russian-American relations deteriorated, the actions of the United States and NATO in Afghanistan began to be viewed increasingly ambiguously.
The deterioration of relations between the Russian Federation and NATO was due to the second stage of expansion to the East, which took place in 2004. Seven more new states were admitted to the organization: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. With the inclusion of the Baltic countries, NATO secured access to the borders of Russia, which itself gave the military the right to call this bridgehead a direct confirmation of the alliance’s aggressive intentions.
In 2007-2008 The deterioration of Russia-NATO relations continued. Thus, in a speech delivered by Russian President V.V. At a security conference in Munich in 2007, Putin outlined all of Russia’s claims to the West in general and to the North Atlantic Alliance in particular. In his speech, V.V. Putin criticized the continued approach of NATO's military infrastructure to the borders of the Russian Federation, the refusal of the organization's member countries to ratify the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, and the North Atlantic Alliance's attempts to use force in circumvention of UN Security Council resolutions.
In 2008, the Russian leadership made efforts to relieve tensions in relations with the United States and the West in general, proposing to conclude a new agreement on European security issues. The draft of this agreement, proposed by the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev, provided for consolidation in international law the principle of indivisibility of security. The introduction of the principle of indivisibility of security, in Russia's opinion, would prevent the strengthening of the security of some states or international organizations at the expense of deteriorating the security of other members of the international community.
Unwilling to commit themselves to any written obligations, NATO countries rejected the draft European security treaty as an attempt by Russia to reduce the influence of Western countries. international structures(primarily NATO) and cause a split in the Euro-Atlantic community. Therefore, Russia did not receive a positive response to this initiative. This contributed to a further deterioration in Russia-NATO relations, and after the outbreak of hostilities in the Caucasus in August 2008, they completely deteriorated.
After the start of the war in South Ossetia, NATO leadership made a number of harsh statements addressed to Moscow and decided to suspend cooperation with the Russian Federation. NATO Secretary General J.H. Schaefer said that interaction with Russia cannot continue in its previous form. Thus, Russia-NATO relations were frozen in 2008 for the second time since the Kosovo crisis, but this time on the initiative of Brussels.
Nevertheless, Russia did not refuse cooperation with the alliance. After some time, Russian leaders demonstrated a desire to ensure the resumption of the NRC. In the summer of 2009, Russia-NATO relations were restored after the island. Corfu hosted the first informal meeting of the NRC since the conflict in the Caucasus.
The third wave of alliance expansion, when Croatia and Albania joined the organization, did not cause such negative emotions in Moscow, like the first two. This was probably due to the fact that West Side The Balkan Peninsula, where these countries are located, is located quite far from Russian borders. At the same time, the accession to NATO of Georgia and Ukraine, which caused the greatest concern in Moscow, was postponed indefinitely at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008.
During the “reset” of Russian-American relations, Russia’s relations with NATO continued to improve. At the Lisbon Summit at the end of 2010, the Alliance's third post-Cold War Strategic Concept was adopted, which stated that NATO does not pose a threat to Russia.
The last major military operation, launched by the North Atlantic Alliance in 2011 in Libya, again demonstrated the instability of Russian-NATO relations, expressing negative Russian assessments of NATO's actions.
The situation in Syria caused even greater controversy. Moscow expressed dissatisfaction with the assistance that Western countries began to provide to the rebels, and was categorically against carrying out military operation NATO in Syria.
Now about Ukraine. Ukraine's foreign policy since the collapse of the USSR in 1991 has been an alternation of periods of rapprochement with Euro-Atlantic structures and periods of balancing between Russia and Western countries. After President L. Kuchma came to power in the country in 1994, Kyiv began to increasingly gravitate towards a multi-vector foreign policy. In 1997, Ukraine, following Russia, established formal relations with NATO by signing the Partnership Charter with Brussels. During this period, the question of the country’s entry into the organization had not yet been raised, and a number of foreign policy documents enshrined Ukraine’s non-aligned status.
As a permanent body of cooperation between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Alliance, the NATO Ukraine Commission was created, which appeared together with the NATO Russia Council in 1997. Military interaction gradually expanded: certain agreements were reached in the field of strategic air transportation, as well as the possibility of using territory of Ukraine to conduct alliance operations. Nevertheless, the desire of the country's leadership to join NATO under President L. Kuchma was not recorded in official documents.
After the “Orange Revolution” of 2004, pro-Western tendencies in Ukrainian politics intensified many times over. During this period, official Kyiv was no longer aimed only at rapprochement with Euro-Atlantic institutions, but also sought to lead the process of integration of the CIS countries into NATO and the EU. At that moment, Ukraine wanted to distance itself as much as possible from Russia. President V. Yushchenko made an attempt to intensify cooperation within the framework of the regional international organization GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova), which cannot in any way be classified as a friendly association for Russia.
Thus, V. Yushchenko in 2005 sought to ensure the fastest possible entry of Ukraine into the North Atlantic Alliance and the European Union, and corresponding changes were made to the Ukrainian military doctrine. During these years, Kyiv joined NATO's Intensive Dialogue program, which is an intermediate step between providing the country with an individual partnership program and an action plan to prepare for NATO membership. In addition, the possibility of Ukraine's participation in some military operations of the alliance began to be widely discussed: in Kosovo, Iraq and the Mediterranean Sea.
A new change occurred after the 2010 presidential elections, when Ukrainian President V. Yanukovych declared the country’s main foreign policy goal to join not NATO, but the European Union. In Russia, many experts characterized the coming to power of a new president (apparently incorrectly) as a pro-Russian turn in Ukrainian foreign policy.
However, in essence, this meant a return to the previous policy of balancing between Russia and the West, which the country followed until 2005 and which remained so until 2014. In fact, V. Yanukovych’s policy could be characterized as a gradual drift towards Euro-Atlantic institutions, which was carried out not as hastily as during the years of V. Yushchenko’s presidency.
It should be noted that during these years in Ukraine there was no consensus both at the level of society and at the level of political elites regarding foreign policy priorities and goals that the Ukrainian state should pursue. For quite a long time, Ukraine tried to sit on two chairs, which at a certain historical period in principle, it was justified, since it made it possible to obtain significant advantages from both Russia and Western countries, balancing between them. This policy is often pursued by small and medium-sized states, which, by virtue of their geographical location are located relatively close to more major centers strength.
According to the President of Russia V.V. Putin, the decision to incorporate the Crimean Peninsula into the Russian Federation was made partly in order to prevent the emergence of NATO bases in Sevastopol and to prevent Russia from being squeezed out of the Black Sea region. As the president said during a direct line on April 17, 2014, there was a danger that after a certain time Western countries would “drag Ukraine into NATO... and NATO ships would end up in the city of Russian naval glory in Sevastopol.”
Of course, the events in Crimea in 2014 could become one of the serious obstacles to Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration. Even before these events, some Ukrainian politicians sought to get rid of the Russian base in Sevastopol by any means, since they considered it impossible for Ukraine to join NATO in such conditions. Indeed, it was quite difficult to imagine the existence of a Russian base on the territory of a NATO member country. Although officially there are no prohibitions regarding military facilities of third countries in the founding documents of the North Atlantic Alliance.
With the annexation of Crimea to Russia officially completed, Ukraine's entry into NATO looks even less realistic than before. Official Kyiv will never come to terms with the separation of this territory, and, as is known, only those countries that do not have territorial claims to the neighbors. Accordingly, the Ukrainian authorities have only two mutually exclusive options: either renounce Crimea and join NATO, or, conversely, refuse to join NATO and demand the return of the peninsula to Ukraine.
At the same time, the North Atlantic Alliance is not yet ready to enter into a direct military conflict with Russia over Ukraine. All these years, Western countries, and primarily the United States, have been trying to prevent Ukraine from rapprochement with Russia.
In general, Russian-NATO relations remain cool at the moment. The fact is that among the member countries of the alliance there are states (we are talking mainly about CEE countries) that were not ready to “reset” relations between NATO and the Russian Federation to the same extent as was done between the United States and Russia. Eastern European states more than countries Western Europe, are concerned about hostile policies that they believe are coming from Russia.
Despite the fact that the scenario of an open military conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation is not seriously considered in either Russian or NATO official documents (including latest version NATO Strategic Concept), some Eastern European countries continue to view the Russian Federation with suspicion and are not ready for full cooperation with Moscow.
This is likely related to their desire to expand the alliance’s sphere of competence, to include topics such as energy security and cyber terrorism on the NATO agenda, and to use Article 5 of the Washington Treaty in relation to these threats.
Another potential source of disagreement between Russia and NATO could be Arctic issues. Among the member countries of the bloc, the presence in the Arctic region of states such as the USA and Norway is most noticeable; Canada and Iceland have their own interests here. If Finland and Sweden join NATO (and such scenarios are already being discussed), all states, except Russia, located close to Arctic region, will be members of the North Atlantic Alliance. There is a threat of militarization of the Arctic, which is due to the strategic importance of this region. Firstly, the Arctic is shortest way for intercontinental ballistic missiles, and secondly, on arctic shelf mining is possible in the future.
A variety of opinions are being expressed today about the prospects for Russia-NATO relations, both positive and diametrically opposed. Some experts believe that today is a turning point and a transition is taking place from a policy of confrontation to dialogue. Others, on the contrary, believe that such a rapprochement in the foreseeable future is extremely unrealistic, since there are currently too many obstacles and contradictions in its way. Only their successful overcoming will make it possible to determine how ready the parties are for mutual dialogue.
The Ukrainian crisis has updated the role and importance of NATO and raised questions about the possibility of Ukraine and other countries joining the bloc.
On the one hand, NATO realizes that in a situation where Russia’s interests are directly affected, the alliance is not suitable. Russia is not an enemy; it does not pose a real security threat to NATO. On the other hand, “I want to, but I can’t”: Russia is a sovereign state, capable of defending its interests by force if necessary, and at the same time clearly defining its “red lines”, and NATO generals do not want to really fight in such conditions and are unlikely to agree. At the same time, the leading position in determining NATO policy is occupied by the United States, and without it NATO is not NATO. There are also conflicting statements coming from the United States. Thus, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Christine Warmuth said in February 2015 at a hearing in the US House of Representatives that the United States fears “destabilizing actions” on the part of Russia towards NATO members and their partners: “We have concerns about countries which are not part of NATO, for example, Montenegro and other small states" in the event that Russia "takes destabilizing actions." According to her, the United States is “working to provide assistance to such countries so that they can counter such activity.” “In addition, we fear that Russia will try to destabilize the situation in NATO member countries, especially in the Baltic states, where large numbers of Russians live.” She confirmed Washington’s readiness to “comply with its obligations under Article 5” of the NATO collective defense charter. At the same time, a Pentagon spokeswoman admitted that she had this moment“there is no evidence of serious active actions” by Russia in this direction.
Such “horror stories” do not bring any benefit and do not contribute to the normalization of relations between the United States and Russia and Russia and NATO.
Based on an analysis of the relationship between Russia and NATO over the past twenty years, we can conclude that they are developing unstably and there is no stable trend in them. Periods of cooperation give way to confrontation quite often (the most acute crisis phenomena in Russian-NATO relations were observed in 1999, 2008 and 2014-2015). This is due to the fact that Russia and NATO have a number of contradictions. At the same time, the parties also cannot ignore each other, and cooperation on issues where their interests coincide can yield positive results.
Oleg KHLOPOV,
Candidate of Political Sciences, Associate Professor of the Russian
state
humanitarian
University (RGGU)