USA (NATO) and Russia: how can they – if ever - be true allies?

 By Zoran P. Visak

Russia needs a strong state power and must have it. But I am not calling for totalitarianism"
Vladimir Putin
 
Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” 
Winston Churchill 
 
 
It seems that the latest NATO Summit in Chicago and the recent NRC meeting in Brussels have not brought any “new light” on NATO-Russia Relations. The relationship between the two sides mainly remains focused on their actual (nuclear) power and the general mutual concerns of combating terrorism, piracy and drug trafficking. One does not need to be an expert to realize that a true and full USA-Russia alliance, if it ever comes to it, is the key to any real and lasting agreement. The question which rises is whether Russia wants to become a NATO partner or member and in a way that America would be ready to allow. In my opinion, there are serious obstacles in this respect.  
 
The greatness and power of modern Russia (since Peter the Great) was and still is based on mystic, medieval contemplation and usually an absence of reality. This political “Modus Vivendi”, combined with everlasting autocracy, brought devastating results to Russia itself, particularly in the 20th century. The behavior of Tsar Nikolai in 1905 and Josef Stalin in 1939-1941 are the best examples - millions paid the price with their lives. In the Russian epics this sacrificing is even glorified and considered “inevitable”. In a country of vast cultural and scientific potential, critical comprehension and open criticism of history (particularly the recent one) is, yet today, quite unacceptable, whether in press, on television or film. Public opinion, even when it is allowed, is given little credence – not by the authorities (starting with Mr. Putin himself) nor (which is much worse) the majority of the ‘common people’. Strong state power is a synonym for “one-man” power (see the quote above).
 
Following this medieval paradigm Russia always uses a “stick” and rarely a “carrot” and, as a consequence, retains a number of hostile nations in Eastern Europe, once its former block. Ex-Soviet Union (forced) allies or inside-member countries, particularly Poland and the Baltic Trio (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) became the closest allies to USA and NATO mainly due to their hard historical experience of Russian rule. They indeed have quite logical reasons to call for America´s (and NATO´s) wider involvement in their security – including deployment of significant military resources on their territories as a visible sign of assurance and national security. Today Russia cannot count on almost any reliable regional political and military ally – not even (or even less) the “sister” Ukraine. It is largely left to itself, by itself. 
 
Economic growth is another very questionable issue in Russia. It follows those same aforementioned attitudes and its enormous size and relative emptiness (in terms of ratio of population to landmass) are substantial set-backs. Thus, Russia`s military development was and still is being made under enormous “pressure” on its economy. Even with almost the whole of Eastern Europe as their (forced) allies Russians (USSR) lost the “military race” largely because their economy could not support it. 
 
To sum up, the aforementioned issues point to the fact that Russia alone cannot be a world super-force equal as a rival to America and NATO, despite its still formidable (but aging) military might. On the other hand, while it maintains the aforesaid attitude that neglects reality and stands on epic-tales of “Mother Russia”, Moscow will never stop trying and pushing for recognition of equal status with the USA/NATO. It will never agree, as the practical British did, to hand over leadership to America on the basis of a “special” but unequal relationship. Thus, there appears to be little prospect of Russia entering NATO, fully and unconditionally. 
 
On the other hand, if Russia could only accept  a position within the alliance akin to the larger European members like the United Kingdom, Germany or France, it would undoubtedly provide Moscow with a platform for meeting both its national security concerns and an outlet in which to promote Russian values (similar perhaps to how France has dipped in and out of NATO structures while retaining a strong autonomous national identity).  
 
In that case, the acceptance of Georgia and Ukraine in NATO or a larger American military presence in eastern NATO member-states would no longer be an issue. What is needed is an “alternative Russia” to stand up and be counted and to promote this pragmatic strategy. However, to make this historical step Russia needs to change many things – probably too many things at present – and unfortunately the Putin-Medvedev duo are far from being ready to even start such a process. The above quote from Mr. Putin speaks volumes about current intentions. 
 
America, on the other hand, remains in a position of military and economic superiority relative to Russia, although Washington’s ‘sole superpower’ status is threatened by both political and economic instability at home and the rise of other major states such as India and China. For the USA, and the West in general, Russia is still largely defined by Mr. Churchill’s famous 1939 radio broadcast cited above – although some of the mystic has disappeared since the fall of communism. Moreover, in crucial decisions affecting Russian interests, America has never been too ready to listen and discuss options, despite some positive developments under President Obama. This attitude will never help or encourage the long and tedious formation and development of “alternative Russia”, which would benefit America, Europe and NATO as a whole. 
 
America has to do more – much more – to overcome the mystery and enigma that Churchill speaks about and re-assure the Russian side – give it some space - to start thinking differently. The full, but rarely cited, Winston Churchill quotation offers the way forward: "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest". The White House and officials at NATO HQ in Brussels need to do more to harness Russian national interest.
 
Zoran Visak is a NATO Watch Associate who lives and works in Portugal. He has a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the Instituto de Tecnologia, Química e Biológica (ITQB), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal