Russia’s post-office to NATO, as well as the information office and the military liaison mission of the alliance in Moscow, which will close in early November, are vestiges of the era of the “rogue 90s”, the time of “low-handedness to the West” when Russia was stubbornly trying to get the friendly family of Western countries to recognize it as its own. It was then that all sorts of structures responsible for interaction and cooperation with the West in various spheres were hastily created
However, in recent years, joint work has been virtually suspended in some areas, in particular, contacts with NATO have been reduced to virtually zero. So the decision to close is merely a formalisation of the reality. It would not have happened if Brussels had not escalated the situation sharply for reasons that are little understood. That is the only way to describe the decision to expel eight members of the Russian mission to the North Atlantic Alliance and to reduce the positions of two more of them. This is not the first step towards confrontation. Last time, the reason for a similar decision was the so-called Skripal case. This time, they did not even bother to look for a reason.
According to North Atlantic Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, this time it was not a reaction to “any specific events”. Russia has allegedly stepped up its “malicious activities”, and the diplomats stripped of their accreditation were allegedly officers of the Russian intelligence service. Naturally, no evidence has been produced.
There is no reason to call what happened a break-up. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said this: “There was nothing to break. There is no relationship,” Peskov was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke on the same topic, saying: “All military-to-military contacts have been cut off, it has been officially announced. Then what loss of opportunity for dialogue are we talking about?”
Meanwhile, we can talk about the prehistory of relations between the military bloc of Western countries and Russia. Moscow, through Lavrov, at the end of September called for their de-escalation. A statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry following the meeting between the Russian foreign minister and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in Washington said in this regard: “The Russian side… has once again drawn attention to our concrete proposals for de-escalation and the reduction of tension along the line of contact.”
Andrei Sidorov, head of the department of international organizations and global political processes of the Faculty of World Politics at Lomonosov Moscow State University, believes that further relations depend on the actions of the alliance: “I think that now in NATO, if they want normal relations with Russia, they should in principle look for some compromises. I don’t think such compromises will be found.
All really serious questions have to be solved by the military in a working and operational way. And this is important. And there is no need to imitate political interaction for a long time. So it’s right,” Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, wrote in his Telegram channel.
Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the Duma’s foreign affairs committee, called the Russian leadership’s decision “more than an adequate response,” pointing out that “the alliance has taken an openly confrontational stance regarding Russia, and NATO representatives’ statements about the need for dialogue are clearly at odds with the deeds. I fully agree with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov – under such circumstances we can no longer pretend that there is any prospect of positive change in relations with NATO in the near future.
“NATO’s mission has proven impossible”, – the head of Russian parliamentary diplomacy said.
In reality the interaction and the exchange of information in the military field will take place. There are quite a few issues which require operative coordination and they are solved through direct contacts between the Russian and US Chiefs of General Staff Valery Gerasimov and Mark Milly. This line of communication will remain in any case, because without it it is impossible to agree on the details of the military operation in Syria, for example.
Andrei Babitsky, specially for News Front