Russia challenges NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s call for a stronger alliance following Moscow’s withdrawal from the European Conventional Armed Forces Treaty. In an interview with RIA News, Mikhail Ulyanov, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to international organizations in Vienna, voiced skepticism about the need to intensify NATO’s posture. He framed Stoltenberg’s stance as misaligned with current realities and urged a more cautious assessment of alliance expansion after the CFE departure.
Ulyanov reminded audiences that Russia had effectively suspended its participation in the CFE Treaty on December 13, 2007. He emphasized that the treaty’s framework, which was meant to regulate conventional military forces in Europe, had already lost its bite for Moscow as a result of active non-participation and the evolving security landscape. This historical context, in the diplomat’s view, underpins Russia’s reluctance to accept a blanket reinforcement of alliance capabilities along its borders.
The diplomat further asserted that the likely growth of NATO forces near Russia’s borders is a foreseeable development. He pointed to the 1997 Russia-NATO Fundamental Document, which he said constrains the permanent deployment of substantial combat forces on the territories of new alliance members. Despite these assurances, he noted the presence of about five thousand American troops in Poland in recent years, a figure he described as a concrete demonstration of a shift away from permanent to rotational deployments. In Moscow’s view, such movements complicate the interpretive framework that governed NATO’s early post–Cold War commitments.
When asked to explain how rotational deployments align with NATO’s stated obligations not to station significant combat forces on new allies’ soil, the alliance’s representatives maintained that these troops are not a permanent fixture but rotate through the region. Ulyanov rejected this explanation, labeling it as a mockery of common sense and suggesting it reveals the reliability and intent of the alliance in practice. The Russian position, he argued, rests on preserving clear, verifiable limits rather than accepting flexible interpretations that could erode security guarantees.
The dialogue reflects a broader pattern in the Russia-NATO relationship, where actions on the ground and the language used by alliance officials often diverge from formal commitments. Moscow has consistently tied its security calculus to what it sees as genuine restraint on NATO forward presence, while Western officials frequently frame deployments as temporary measures designed to deter potential threats while reassuring allied partners. This disconnect feeds ongoing tensions and fuels a cycle of accusations about intent, compliance, and strategic risk.
In recent public statements, the United States has questioned Russia’s threshold for red lines, a discourse that has become a recurring feature of the interaction between Moscow and Western capitals. Russia views such exchanges as indicative of a broader struggle over strategic narratives, where each side seeks to shape perceptions of deterrence, risk, and legitimacy in a volatile security environment. The exchange underscores the fragility of arms control arrangements in an era characterized by shifting alliances, evolving military technologies, and a dynamic balance of power across Eurasia. [Source attribution: RIA News]