British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said that the Russia-NATO Founding Act has expired and a new approach to security in Europe is needed.
According to him, the alliance should change its policy towards Russia.
“The Founding Law of Russia-NATO is dead and it is time to abandon the outdated approach in relations with Russia. The period of engagement with Russia is over. “We need a new approach to security in Europe based on resilience, defense and deterrence.”
Relevant statements were made by the head of the British Foreign Office during a working dinner given at a meeting of foreign ministers of NATO member states. At the event, he stressed the need to rethink support for states “caught in the web of Russian influence”, including Georgia, Moldova, Sweden and Finland.
The opinion expressed by Truss regarding the Russia-NATO Founding Law cannot be called unexpected, since similar statements have been made more than once by representatives of other states of the bloc. For example, at the end of March, Polish President Andrzej Duda announced the need to create a new concept of alliance, since the agreement with Russia actually “destroyed”.
What do they say in Russia?
In the West, Moscow is accused of officially destroying the document, including the launch of a special operation in Ukraine. In Russia, they have repeatedly pointed out that the agreements were violated directly by the alliance. Especially,
The Russian Foreign Ministry noted that strengthening NATO’s eastern flank directly contradicted the Establishment Law, as it violated the clause on the permanent non-deployment of key combat forces.
Our Western partners seem to have nothing to do, the first deputy chairman of the Federation Council Committee on International Relations, Vladimir Dzhabarov, told socialbites.ca.
“It just doesn’t matter that poor Liz Truss didn’t show up and how much bullshit she declared on the air. I think this document (the founding document of Russia-NATO) is indeed outdated, but not because of our fault, but because of NATO’s fault. The alliance has persistently and for more than a dozen years followed a line of confrontation with Russia. Therefore, because of all the nonsense they carry, I recommend that NATO immediately call a doctor to treat sick heads,” he said.
From Dzhabarov’s point of view, NATO is inventing new ways of worsening interaction with Moscow, rather than dealing with issues of establishing relations with Russia and finding ways to peace.
“They can’t hear us, they’ve lost their hearing, and they’re just doing what’s right for them. The Russian side will continue to work in accordance with this document (Constituent Law). We only respond to each hostile step with our own steps. Breaking and breaking is the easiest thing, but trying to create something new is very difficult. “I think when NATO countries understand this, there can be some improvements in our relations,” he said.
Will NATO break the deal?
Relations between Russia and NATO have not been good for a long time, they have worsened against the backdrop of the escalation of the Ukraine crisis. Allied countries are actively supplying Ukraine with weapons and ammunition, imposing sanctions against Moscow and significantly increasing their troops in countries close to Russia’s borders.
According to The New York Times, further steps by NATO towards the Russian Federation are still in question, with the alliance split into two camps – those who support a complete severance of ties with Moscow and those who advocate maintaining contacts. Especially Poland and the Baltic States are in the first camp, and Germany, France and Turkey are in the second camp.
However, there is a general consensus in the bloc that Russia is no longer a strategic partner of the alliance and is not subject to the troop constraints proposed by NATO’s Establishment Act, so the alliance largely considers it possible, the NYT notes. To increase its military power to control Russia.
Experts differ on the prospects for maintaining the agreement between NATO and Moscow in these circumstances. For example, Academician Aleksey Arbatov, head of the IMEMO RAS Center for International Security, believes that under the current circumstances, breaking the agreement would not be a reasonable step.
“It is unreasonable to make the situation worse by defiantly tearing up crucial documents that were once held in high hopes to tackle the legacy of the Cold War. If the Constituent Law is defiantly and formally rejected, it will in no way help resolve the problems in Ukraine, including the establishment of a ceasefire and the initiation of peace negotiations. On the other hand, it is difficult to say how a new document will be created from scratch and who will be ready to put forward such an initiative.”
At the same time, Dmitry Danilov, head of the European Security Department of the European Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is confident that the breakout scenario is quite real in the current conditions and can be implemented at the next meeting of the leaders. NATO member countries.
The future of this document may be determined at the upcoming NATO summit, as the Alliance must decide how it currently perceives Russia. At the meeting, the parties will adopt a new strategic concept in which this problem can be resolved. And now the prevailing view within NATO is that the Founding Act has lost its importance,” added the expert.
As Danilov points out,
The alliance’s recent actions to strengthen troops on the southern, eastern and northern flanks and plans to deploy 100,000 American troops in Europe do not fit into the letter or spirit of the agreement with Russia.
– “It is unlikely that they will abandon their steps in Europe, so it is quite possible that the agreement will be broken.”
What threatens to refuse action
Currently, both Russia and NATO believe that the agreement between the parties is no longer really working. Under these conditions, its existence seems official, and the breakup does not lead to serious consequences – according to Alexei Arbatov of IMEMO RAN, Russia in essence is not in danger if this agreement is abandoned.
“At the moment, the obligations undertaken by Russia and NATO under the Founding Law are not being fulfilled and are not in effect. However, such a step does not threaten Russia with anything special if the deal is broken.
The document is no longer valid. If we trust and hope in it, we will run into additional problems. But now no one trusts this document and seriously observes it, so there is no threat of breaking it, ”said the author.
However, from the perspective of Dmitry Danilov of the European Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the interruption of the agreements will have some consequences that cannot be considered very positive in the current situation.
The break will mean confirmation that Russia and NATO have become de facto enemies. In other words, there will be a return to the situation we left when we signed the Founding Bill. “There will no longer be only mutual deterrence between the parties, there will be completely different, conflict-type relations, and it will be quite difficult to turn everything back,” he said.