Reality recognised. Finally! Appeasement between Europe and Russia is no longer considered unrealistic. Distrust continues - that's normal - but it's just for those who regret this development, in Ukraine or elsewhere. However, the reality is increasingly acknowledged and cooperation is sought. Two days ago, Javier Solana, the secretary general of NATO at the time of signing the historical European cooperation agreement with Russia (1997) and then the high representative of the EU for foreign and security policy for a decade (1999-2009), stated: “Russia needs stable relations with the EU. Putin must modernise his country's economy, and the easiest way is a good relationship with the EU”. And Solana added that he continues to hope that the Ukrainian crisis will be settled “in a civilised way, without violence”. He then concluded: “The return to dialogue with Russia must be sought right until the end”. This is not only the opinion of a former leader - the current commander of NATO forces in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, who had previously considered the intervention of Russian armed forces in Ukraine likely, now asserts that Moscow can reach its objectives without crossing the border. What is more, French news agency AFP recently ran the title: “NATO no longer believes in a Russian invasion”. In the body of the article, it said: “The return to dialogue with Russia must be sought right until the end”.
War and peace. Remembering the past helps an understanding of current developments. In 1962, Russia tried to set up missile bases in Cuba, a few dozen kilometres off the American coast. The US reaction was immediate and radical, and Moscow took a step backwards. More recently, the other way round, it is NATO that has gradually extended its presence to several countries that used to be part of the USSR. The two situations are not completely comparable because the countries of the former USSR that joined NATO did so of their own volition - but it is nevertheless understandable that Moscow is not enthusiastic about this proximity of NATO forces to its borders. Understanding must be reciprocal. Experts have said that Operation Crimea had a military focus for Russia, responding to its need to have a port with a depth of water of 14 metres for its navy. It has been noted by the EU, and on the US too, that Putin's annexation of Crimea was quickly considered as in the bag and irreversible. Awareness of the military aspect has played its role more or less officially. Crimea no longer represents an element of divergence between Russia and Europe, nor an obstacle to the positive developments that are now under way.
Concern of defence leaders. Nevertheless, these considerations are accompanied by reservations from NATO and other bodies that deal with defence, in Europe and still more in the US, and that are concerned with how investment in the military domain has slowed down. On the US side, the secretary of defence, Chuck Hagel, proposed at the start of the month that finance ministers and those in charge of national budgets attend a meeting at NATO. Why? Because the European NATO countries continue to cut their military spending, while US defence spending represents three times that of all the other members. The proposal to call a meeting of the finance ministers did not eventually lead anywhere but the problem of military spending is now on the table, especially given the intention of certain member states to reduce or put a brake on purchases of a new military plane (produced in the US). These are complex issues on which our Europe Diplomacy & Defence publication regularly reports in detail.
NATO is doing its duty and by the end of the year meetings are planned even at the level of heads of state and government.
(FR)