NATO-Russia: Is the ‘Russian Question’ European?
The proliferation of theaters (in Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Far East, the Middle East and the Arctic) and cross-cutting issues (proliferation, disarmament, energy, arms sales) demonstrate the overall importance of the NATO/Russia relationship.
Since 1991, the relationship between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Russian Federation has been the main barometer of Russo-Western relations. During the Cold War, the Alliance served primarily to deal with the ‘German question’ and to ward off the ‘Soviet threat.’ Following German reunification and the disappearance of the Soviet bloc, NATO lost a priori its justification. But the Alliance managed to transform itself by redefining its missions and making enlargement its new raison d’être . During the Clinton years, Washington used the Alliance as an instrument for the democratization, reunification and stabilization of Europe, as Russia’s geopolitical status declined. The view from Moscow was that this policy deliberately ignored Russia’s interests. Now, Russia’s resurgence is changing the balance of power, in the wake of transatlantic differences over Iraq and as the NATO countries are bogged down in Afghanistan. This renewed influence is variously interpreted in Washington, and hence within the Alliance. It is obliging the Americans and the Europeans to reconsider the strategic framework in which they view the ‘Russian question,’ while the US/Europe/Russia triangle has not yet stabilized. In this perspective, it can be said that Kabul and Tehran are much more important than Kyiv and Tbilisi for the future of NATO.
The causes of misunderstanding
Three fractures: 1999, 1997 and 2004
The campaign in Kosovo in 1999 is generally held to be the turning-point in Russo-Western relations. This fracture is most often explained by Russia’s feeling of military decline, with the Pristina episode being interpreted as an illustration of Russia’s capacity to make trouble. This campaign did not just hurt NATO’s image in Russia, but also in Belarus and Ukraine. For Moscow, the lesson was threefold and contributed to explaining its subsequent inflexibility.
First, for Vladimir Putin, Kosovo revealed the necessity of reconsidering Russia’s security policy. The Russian elites became aware of their strategic marginalization, leading to a strong feeling of humiliation and great resentment. Subsequently, this was often exaggerated. Nevertheless, this is all that NATO understood, exaggerating its own politico-military potential and downplaying the strictly Russian aspect of the issue. […]
OUTLINE
- The causes of misunderstanding
- Three fractures: 1999, 1997 and 2004
- The grandeur and misery of public diplomacy
- Confrontations and lessons - Outline of the ‘Russian Question’
- Russia as a source of security or insecurity
- European security at the heart of the US/Europe/Russia triangle
- The US/Europe/Russian triangle at the center of world security
Thomas Gomart is Director of the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri).
This paper has been translated into English by Nicholas Sowels.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
NATO-Russia: Is the ‘Russian Question’ European?
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
The Future of Europe in the Context of Sino-American Competition
This special issue of Politique étrangère focuses on the proceedings of the Conference organized by the French Institute of International Relations (Ifri) for its 40th anniversary, held on April 10th, 2019, in Sorbonne University's Grand Amphithéâtre.
The Waning of Universalism
During the 19th century, Westerners provided ideological justifications for their colonization, namely spreading the Enlightenment across the globe. This project was received favorably until the second half of the 20th century. Over the last 20 years, it has met new hostility. The “universal values” promoted by the West are viewed today as a form of imperialism to be opposed – especially by China, Russia and Turkey.
The Future of the International Monetary and Financial System
Following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, the international community sought new stability in the financial system and the assurance of sustained growth. The crisis that began in 2007-2008 has revealed weaknesses that affected advanced economies first and foremost. Efforts have since been made to consolidate the international financial architecture, to coordinate macroeconomic policy, and to improve foreign exchange relations, even if this latter objective has proven complex.
International trade disagreements: Beyond Trump
The trade war between the United States and China is not only due to Donald Trump’s impulsiveness. Its roots are in fact profound and follow three structural changes in the multilateral trading system: the reversal of comparative advantages, the now central role of certain developing countries, and the re-balancing of power that makes coordination between states difficult. In this context, the future of world trade has yet to be written.