NATO countries believe that the normalization of the dialogue with Russia is impossible, on 6 December after a meeting of foreign Ministers of the countries of the Alliance told reporters U.S. Secretary of state Rex Tillerson.
«We discussed in that meeting — in particular, yesterday over dinner — what should the relationship with Russia. There is a consensus among all NATO members that the normalization of the dialogue with Russia is not happening,» he said.
Tillerson noted that the meeting of the Council Russia-NATO are held periodically, however, to return to regular meetings, the Alliance does not intend to. The U.S., he said, support the «productive dialogue» and not «communication for communion». He also added that the dialogue with Moscow will be possible only after resolution of the situation in Ukraine and the termination of the «hybrid war» because such actions «unacceptable and intolerable».
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters that NATO wanted to expand the practice of mutual briefings on military exercises and to discuss with the Kremlin’s «hybrid threats». He expressed interest in the management of the Alliance in direct contact with the head of the Russian General staff.
While Stoltenberg stressed that the members of the unit considered an effective approach towards Russia, as agreed at the summit in Warsaw, which is «to reinforce collective defence, and the openness to dialogue». Note that the agenda, held last summer in Warsaw summit was sharply anti-Russian, that is where decisions were made about the strengthening of military presence of NATO in Eastern Europe. Many experts have called this summit the official announcement of a new «cold war».
— NATO has long there is no unity, — said the Deputy Director of the National Institute of modern ideology development Igor Shatrov. — The most striking example of cooperation between Russia and Turkey in Syria. Turkey — a stronghold of NATO in the middle East. It is the country with the second after the United States largest army in NATO. And she’s not just contacts and interacts with Russia on the Syrian base of military operations, that is, in a real combat situation, not on the teachings. While Turkey develops military-technical cooperation with our country and signed the contract on delivery is antiaircraft-rocket complexes With-400.
«SP»: — How the United States set the direction vector of the anti-NATO? He would have been the same without US?
— Statement Tillerson expressed a desire, but not US. Unconditional support for the American position expresses only the Baltic countries and some Eastern European States like Poland, the heads of which sleep and see themselves as the new leaders of Europe. Germany, other countries of «old Europe» think about the creation of the armed forces of the European Union to replace NATO. The main goal of this project is to take the defense of Europe under the control of European States. That is why the United States are inventing new threats, which allegedly capable of defending Europe only by the North Atlantic Alliance. And the «Russian threat» — the first in the list.
«SP»: — as conditions for the resumption of dialogue with Moscow, the head of the Department of state called the resolution on the situation in Ukraine and the cessation of Russia’s «hybrid war». As soon as these reasons have led to a cooling of relations?
— One reason — the growth of Russian influence in the world. You know, the new us administration was just unlucky. The most inexperienced in political terms, the President led the USA in that period, when Russia returned to the international scene as equal with the United States of the player. For me it is indicative in this respect were relations with Saudi Arabia. Trump began his foreign tour with visit to Riyadh, he gathered the leaders of the Arab countries, promised aid almost in the establishment of an Arab NATO, but demanded to follow the American course. The result: after some time the Saudi king for the first time in the history of relations visits Russia, followed by Turkey negotiates the purchase of Russian s-400. Also, the Saudis do not miss the time to remind you that cooperation between Moscow and Riyadh have helped to stabilize the situation in the oil market. We know how much the US has done to the market is to destabilize. And the last strange decision trump on the transfer of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from tel Aviv to Jerusalem is threatening to embroil Washington over the Arab world. These examples illustrate the foreign policy of the new American administration as a whole and not only in the Russian direction. And they say that trump has no respect in the world, no one but himself. However, in this sense he is no different from previous American presidents.
«SP»: — the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters that NATO wanted to expand the practice of mutual briefings on military exercises and to discuss with the Kremlin’s «hybrid threats». But NATO, just as Russia sees the main «hybrid threat». How to understand this contradiction?
— Almost all are contradictory statements on this. All as in the Russian proverb: «And I want and prickly, and hurt, and mother wouldn’t allow it.» «Mother» in the face of US not allow it to deal with Russia and the Europeans, it would be desirable and even imperative to restore contacts — both economic and military.
«SP»: — NATO was created at the time to counteract the USSR. Now one of the main functions of the organization remains the opposition of Russia. This situation actually really ever change?
— In the foreseeable future impossible. The stronger Russia becomes, the more it will oppose in the United States. I think the situation will be exacerbated, not resolved. Recent actions of Washington testify to this. But if the European countries will be able to defend its sovereignty, jumped up from under the American umbrella, then it becomes a real creation of a common Russia and European defence systems. Europe and Russia are geopolitical rivals, and threats from Russia and Europe are common.
According to the Professor of the Moscow state University. M. V. Lomonosov, doctor of political Sciences, member of the Scientific Council under the security Council of the Russian Federation Andrey manoylo, NATO is a mirror of the US foreign policy.
— If the US with someone in conflict — NATO immediately is a Pro-American position. We can say that without the US the NATO leadership to a more balanced attitude to Russia, but in this case — without the USA — most likely, and NATO itself would not be.
Tillerson his statement did not Express their own programmatic position, but rather summed up the General mood present in NATO. In this regard NATO as a military Alliance is interested in the aggravation of the crisis in relations with Russia because this crisis is the only argument, emphasizing the necessity and usefulness of NATO to the Western world. In order for a military unit existed — the enemy is necessary, and this «useful» enemy for NATO, and now Russia.
«SP»: — Why do we need cooperation with NATO? After all, it is a block, created with the sole purpose of countering the us…
— To cooperate with NATO, it is primarily necessary in order to be able to prevent incidents and to convince NATO leaders to refrain from adventurism and provocations that can escalate into a major war. The word now equates to a machine gun, and the Council Russia-NATO is the channel through which the power of our words strikes at NATO’s «enduring rage».
«SP»: — as conditions for the resumption of dialogue with Moscow, the head of the Department of state called the resolution on the situation in Ukraine. To understand it, as another call for surrender made by the Americans from another site?
— No, it’s a mantra that I repeat Americans everywhere, including in the queue for sausage and nuggets: Russia must solve the question with Ukraine. And you can still argue that they will wait for that: words and thoughts are material.
«SP»: — let’s Say, the Ukrainian crisis is resolved. Does this mean that NATO will reconsider the policy enunciated last year in Warsaw?
— Unlikely: NATO, like any large bureaucracy, has tremendous inertia. In addition, our final solution to the Ukrainian question them even more angry. Therefore, in the medium term, to expect a warming of relations with NATO is not necessary.