Remembering the Cold War

An American professor was giving a lecture on arms race and arms control during the Cold War. When she finished one student raised his arm in hesitation to ask a question. In a trembling voice he said: “Excuse my ignorance, but what was Cold War about? I heard it somewhere but I forgot!

Dmitry Udalov, Member of the Youth section of the Association for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation asked Dieter Farwick BrigGen (ret.) of German Army to answer 4 questions on the Cold War.

1. There are different approaches to the essence of the Cold War. Some think its essence was in the balance of military power and ideology was only a mask, others believe it was a struggle of ideas in which democracy proved to be better than communism. What’s your point of view, and was it evolving as time went on?



Dieter Farwick: First of all: It is very difficult to take young people back to a period of time that was about 15 years ago.

I am still convinced that the former Soviet Union and its military instrument – the Warsaw Pact – wanted to spread communism all over the world, including military attacks. We can now look into former secret documents which prove this assessment.

I joined the German Army in 1961 when the Berlin Wall was built. Prior to this I had followed the revolts of the people in Eastern Germany, Poland and Hungary that were defeated by Soviet forces. Especially the fate of Hungary was for us young people an experience we would never forget.

In 1968 – the invasion of the Warsaw Pact into what was known then as Czechoslovakia – I was company commander. German troops were committed to our Eastern border with Czechoslovakia. In 1979 – the Soviet invasion into Afghanistan – I served as battalion commander.

I have written numerous books and essays about the perceived threat. The West won the Cold War because of its political resolve and the credible deterrence based upon military capabilities. The demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact – without a single shot being fired – and the reunification of my home country were not gifts but the result of the political resolve and military strength of Western democracies.

2. When you served in German Armed Forces did you think direct military conflict in Europe had been possible? Or in the final analysis both sides were wise enough to avoid it?

D.F.: Indeed, when I stayed in the German Army I was convinced that one day we would have to defend against an attack by the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. This is what I believed until 1989, when I was commanding a brigade facing the border to the former GDR. After reunification, I learned from former NVA officers that their war machine was ready to start – if ordered by the Soviet Union.

There is one important point to mention: In spite of the perceived threat, we never trained and educated ourselves or our soldiers to hate the individual soldier of the Warsaw Pact armed forces. Therefore, it was not too difficult for us come together with the former enemy – be it in Germany or in NATO where I was responsible to give substance to the Partnership for Peace program.

As a plea for better mutual understanding and tolerance, I edited the book “Ein Staat – eine Armee” (One State – One Army) with authors from the former GDR and FRG.

3. Do you think Cold War stereotypes are gone? And what is to be done by both sides to eradicate them?

D.F.: There might still be “old-style thinking,” but it is fading away. It becomes more and more irrelevant.

In this respect, the NATO-led Partnership for Peace program as well as the work of the NATO-Russia-Council are success stories. I had the opportunity to contribute to a study executed by the Rand Corporation and the Institute for the US and Canadian Studies (ISKRAN). It was my first visit to Moscow, with good discussions with former generals of the former Soviet Red Army.

We should enable young people to meet and develop mutual trust and confidence.

4. Do you think the world has become safer since the end of the Cold War? Or unpredictability, asymmetric threats we face today are more dangerous than bipolar confrontation?

D.F.: The Cold War and the bipolarization caused by the US and the Soviet Union with their respective alliances was a big threat because of the weapons of mass destruction. But the possibility that those weapons might have been committed with worldwide serious and dangerous repercussions prevented the outbreak of a hot war.

Due to the realistic threat of an all out, big war, the Soviet Union and the United States directed their policies toward preventing regional wars that might have eventually triggered the big one.
This kind of a disciplined system has gone. Local and regional wars – and even more intrastate conflicts and wars – have surfaced again. The reasons for these conflicts and wars are manifold: Religious and ethic conflicts, territorial claims, social problems, environmental issues and drug related crimes etc.

Another menace are the multinational terrorists and extremists who misuse the abovementioned reasons for their purposes. In this respect, the so called “failed states” offer safe havens.

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been no substantial military threat for many countries in the world – especially for the US and Europe. Multinational terrorists can kill thousands of people, but they are not able to put Western countries at risk – as in the period of the Cold War. This is a positive development. But there are regions in the world with “classic wars” and guerrilla warfare-like wars and conflicts.

The decreasing availability of energy – like oil, gas and water – and the growing demand for energy will lead to increased political and economic tensions including military operations. In this respect, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has to be prevented. If these weapons were to come into the wrong hands, it would create new fundamental threats – as in the Cold War period.

Therefore, the world will not become safer in the near future. We have to invest more in crisis prevention with an orchestrated effort of elements of soft and hard power.

Kaliningrad

On 26th of May NATO-Russia Rally reached its final point – Kaliningrad. The events in Kaliningrad were hosted by Kaliningrad affiliation of the Moscow State University for Economics, Statistics and Informatics (MESI) with the support of Polish and Lithuanian General Consulates and the Embassy of Denmark.

The conference “NATO-Russia Council: Trust through political dialogue” was opened in the building of the Oceanology museum with a welcoming message by Jean Fournet, NATO Assistant Secretary General. Oleg Mishin, Director of the MESI Kaliningrad affiliation, underlined the importance of the political dialogue and described the work of a Russia – NATO centre in Kaliningrad, which helps retired military personnel to get necessary skills for a new employment.

Isabelle Francois, Head of the NATO Information Office in Moscow, stressed a unique nature of NATO as an organization driven by the consensus decision-making and an evident need for Russia and NATO to combine their efforts against common threats. Mme Francois also said that the very fact that NATO is a target for huge critics is a strong stimulus for the organization to transform itself. She pointed at stereotypes, which make life harder for us, and the necessity to overcome them by independent thinking.

Per Carlsen, Ambassador of Denmark in Russia, touched upon the current multi-format cooperation in the Baltic region and the historical changes that influenced the region greatly during the last decades.

Linas Linkevicius, Permanent Representative of Lithuania in NATO, expressed his opinion that mass media usually largely exaggerate anti-Russian feelings in the Baltic region, therefore distorting the real picture. He called for making the enlargement of NATO a beneficial act, which should not be seen as an aggressive step.

Marek Ziolkowski, representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland, warned the audience that the world will continue to change rapidly, and people should get used to this. He pointed out one of the current changes – the necessity of protection for societies rather than for territories, as many of new threats have no certain territory.

During the Q&A session Isabelle Francois said that it is not possible to make difference between Russian regions in terms of their attitude towards NATO and we should rather talk about differences between concrete people and groups of people.

The first panel discussion “Trust through Political Dialogue”, chaired by Jean Fournet, opened with a speech by Dmitry Talanov, Head of NATO Desk in the All-European Cooperation Department of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Talanov supported the idea of necessity to leave stereotypes of the past, stressing that those stereotypes are mutual for Russia and NATO. Mr. Talanov underlined the innovative character of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC), which acted well according to the expectations during the passed years. He said that the dialogue between NATO and Russia is now more mature than at the time of the NRC creation, but the potential for cooperation is not yet used up to the maximum. Mr. Talanov confessed that cooperation sometimes lacks necessary depth and the level of trust. He reminded of certain unsolved issues between Russia and NATO – such as the ratification by NATO member states of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), strange moves for reconstruction of military infrastructure in Bulgaria, Romania and Baltic states and the NATO enlargement to which Russia will have to accommodate in military terms. Mr. Talanov underlined that NATO – Russia relations will heavily depend on a way of NATO transformation. Answering the question posed in the title of the Rally – “What binds us together?”, he said that it is the willingness to make the world more stable and safe.

Peter Lunak, representative of NATO Public Diplomacy Division, reminded the audience that all the current operations by NATO are supported by Russia, since Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which has established a legal basis for each of the operations.

Konstantin Makienko, representative of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, expressed his opinion that the current level of trust between NATO and Russia is extremely low, which is the result of the war in Kosovo and the ongoing enlargement of NATO. He warned that the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine may lead to a split of the country. Mr. Makienko underlined that trust may only emerge, when substantial projects with a strong socio-economic component are being implemented. He draw as an example the recent agreement, which lets NATO to use heavy airlift capabilities of Russia and Ukraine.

Ernest Wyciszkiewcz, representative of the Polish Institute of International Relations, said that NATO – Russia cooperation moves from desirable to achievable.

Audrius Baciulis, a Lithuanian journalist, draw the attention of the audience to the fact that anti-NATO campaign in Russia is growing, referring back to Kosovo operation, but it is surprising that anti-NATO feelings measured by surveys are now higher than in 1999 – 2000, when the operation was held. He complained that critics of NATO forget that all the new members of NATO decrease their armed forces and military budgets. Mr. Baciulis believes that the roots of the anti-NATO propaganda lay in its supporters' long-lasting relations with Soviet armed forces and defense industry.

During Q&A session, NATO has been accused of supporting narcotics flows from Afghanistan. Konstantin Makienko contested such a view by saying that the growing amount of drugs coming from Afghanistan is rather related to the fact that Taliban forces previously controlled the entire territory of the country, while NATO is not yet able to control all the Afghan regions.

The second panel of the conference “Challenges of gathering public support: The NATO – Russia case” was chaired by Tatyana Parkhalina, Director of the Centre for European Security. The panel started with an explanation of the results of a recent survey on Russian people’s attitude to NATO, presented by Dmitry Polikanov, one of the survey’s organizers. He characterized the perception of NATO in Russia during the last years as a stable one with a slight change from negative to a lukewarm. However, he confessed that the community of experts is, in general, more negative towards NATO than ordinary citizens and that Moscow and Saint-Petersburg are more negative than smaller cities and Far East of Russia, where they are more worried with Chinese expansion than with NATO enlargement. Mr. Polikanov said that the majority of respondents are ill informed on NATO issues and do not wish to learn more, while experts state that they are overfed with information on NATO. NATO is generally associated in people’s minds with an “aggressive block” and a “lobbyist of interests of the US”. The study of media coverage on NATO has shown that the majority of the reports on the issue in mass media are either negative, or completely official and therefore not interesting for a larger audience. However, in spite of the remaining stereotypes, the majority of respondents support cooperation with NATO, following a common wisdom that a lean compromise is better than a fat lawsuit. Mr. Polikanov pointed out three groups of people split by their attitude towards NATO – first, 10-15 percent of those, who support Russia-NATO cooperation up to Russia’s accession to NATO, second, 20 – 25 percent of indifferent and 40 – 45 percent of those, who are hostile towards NATO.

Tatyana Parkhalina started her speech by listing the stereotypes, which still exist in relations between Russia and the West. She confessed that expectations of a military unrest coming from the West is based on historical experience, which is simply extrapolated to the modern world by those, who gain their political profits in usage of the “sieged fortress” ideology. Among other stereotypes are “zero-sum game” understanding of international politics and “NATO is the US” image. Dr. Parkhalina noted that the West also has certain stereotypes towards Russia. Expecting rapid democratization of Russia in the 90s, many in the West got disappointed by the latest developments, coming to the thought that Russia is unable to transform itself. The defeat in the Cold War is usually taken as a reason, why Russia should simply follow the course of the US, which is not the case. Dr. Parkhalina has found the roots of stereotypes in the lack of knowledge, quoting a famous Russian poet Evgeny Evtushenko, who once said that “ignorance instinctively hates the object, which it doesn’t understand, creating an enemy image out of it.” The way out of the current situation, according to Dr. Parkhalina, goes through information and education. She proposed a creation of a permanent civic forum Russia – NATO and announced an online debate in the Internet, which her Centre is planning to hold.

Tobias Brener, representative of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also called the audience to leave stereotypes of the past.

Rimante Budryte, representative of the Lithuanian Vitautas Magnus University, complained on the ill media coverage of NATO – Russia relations, saying that if one doesn’t do some kind of specific research on NATO – Russia issues, s/he knows nothing about NATO-Russia Council.

Olaf Osica, representative of the European Centre in Natolin, Poland, characterized NATO – Russia relations as evolving from idealism to realism. He called Russia to take a strategic decision on cooperation with NATO, which is the only way to avoid further disappointments.

In his final remarks, Jean Fournet deliberated on the results of the Rally, saying that during the whole project NATO has built a network of new friends and has gathered some ideas, which should be discussed in the NATO-Russia Council.

The conference was followed by the youth forum “Can a Non-Governmental Organization provide objective information on NATO”, chaired by Per Carlsen, the Ambassador of Denmark in Russia and Linus Linkevicius, Ambassador of Lithuania in NATO.

Mia Lund Rasmussen, representative of the Danish Atlantic Treaty Association, devoted her speech to the youth work that her Association is doing, which is, among other things, famous for the oldest Atlantic youth international seminar held annually in Denmark for more than 20 years. Troels Egeskov Sorensen, representative of the international Atlantic Treaty Association (ATA), explained to the youth of Kaliningrad the essence of educational efforts of the ATA, which has now developed a toolkit of teaching materials, available in the Internet. Gintare Simonyte, President of the Youth Council in the Lithuanian Atlantic Treaty Association, explained the work that her organization is doing, which has recently experienced significant progress. Sergey Utkin, Chairman of the Youth Section in the Russian Association for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation (AEAC), described the work that Russian branch of the ATA is doing and urged the audience to join the network and to participate actively in numerous events held by the AEAC, the ATA and their partners in Russia and abroad. Students from Kaliningrad and the faculty staff of the MESI University affiliation expressed their strong interest in participation in international activities of this kind.

After the youth forum, the participants were invited to a magnificent open-air concert of Lithuanian, Polish and Russian military orchestras. The programme of the Rally has ended with an evening reception given by the General Consuls of Lithuania and Poland in the building of the Oceanology museum.

Here you may find some photos from the Rally events in Kaliningrad.

Hans Haekkerup, Former Danish Defense Minister, 1993-2001 and Special Representative for UN Secretary General in Kosovo, 2000-2001

Since I learned Russian many years ago, I have closely followed the development first in the Soviet Union and now in Russia. Because when you learn a language you also learn about the history, the culture, the political system in the country – you even learn to sing their songs.

When things started to change in the 1980’es I was a member of the Defence Committee in the Danish parliament, and from January 1993 to the end of 2000 I served as Minister of Defence.

I was strongly in favour of opening up NATO to the new democracies emerging in Central and Eastern Europe. But I also realised that this did not make things easier for our friends in Russia. Many Russian generals and politicians looked at the world from the old Cold War logic and strictly saw things from a geopolitical point of view, as a zero-sum game. If something would benefit USA and Western Europe – then automatically it would harm Russia’s national interests. They even talked about the countries that emerged from the former Soviet Union as the “near abroad”, a special Russian sphere of interest. This was of course not acceptable.

As a NATO Defence Minister I tried to convince my colleagues about the simple fact that we would only succeed fully in creating a free and safer Europe, if we could draw Russia closer to NATO at the same time as we enlarged the Alliance. And – although many of my colleagues were sceptical – I did not rule out Russian membership of the Alliance. It would of course be a different Alliance – and a different Russia.

In midst of the disaster, 9/11 also had some positive consequences. One of them was a rapprochement between the US and Russia. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case.

A year later the Bush administration adopted a new Strategic Doctrine. It prescribes the possibility of pre-emptive strikes against rogue states. Russia reacted very negatively to this even if it was not directed against Russia.

The Iraq War strained Russia’s relations with the USA even further, and Russia attacked the Bush-administration for striving to establish global hegemony.

Why then do I still think that it is in Russia’s best interest to join NATO?

Culturally and economically Russia belongs to Europe. Russia has to realize that it is first and foremost a European power. A membership of NATO would bring Russia into the family of democratic European nations and support the development of Russia’s democratic forces.

Russia has to realize that there is only one superpower left, the USA, and that it is better to try to influence the Americans than working against them. Also, a multi-polar world is not necessarily a more peaceful world.

Looking at the challenges ahead of us NATO is unique in the sense that it is the only international organisation with an integrated command system. After 9/11 we have to focus on the new threats, terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction etc. Only NATO has the necessary capabilities to counter these threats, and only NATO can undertake large-scale multinational military operations if necessary.

The Russians should start to think more about the future and less about the past.

Hans Hækkerup

Манфред Диль, полковник Генерального штаба в отставке, Германия

НАТО и Россия достигли согласия в сотрудничестве по вопросам военной реформы, которая, по моему мнению, является неизбывной проблемой СССР и России со времен гласности и перестройки. Однако с первых же контактов с российской делегацией, которую возглавлял генерал-полковник Юрий Балуевский, нам было крайне удивительно слышать российские заявления о том, что c российской военной реформой "все в порядке" и она движется "по плану". То есть, по словам россиян, отсутствовала сама необходимость в нашем сотрудничестве по этому вопросу. Однако, как я понимаю, подобное отношение со временем изменилось.

Мне представляется принципиально важной выработка общего понимания принципов демократической реформы. Это позволит расширить базис для более конструктивного планирования и исполнения военного сотрудничества в будущем.

Существуют общие для всех демократий базовые принципы установления места и роли военных в демократическом обществе. Вооруженные силы должны подчиняться образованному демократическим путем легитимному политическому руководству с гражданским министром обороны, следовать политическим указаниям руководства, подчиняться верховенству закона, действовать в рамках своих конституционно определенных задач (обеспечение обороны страны и внешней безопасности и в исключительных, четко определенных случаях - внутренней безопасности под командованием полицейских сил), быть политически нейтральными, не обладать доступом к какой-либо иной финансовой поддержке, кроме госбюджета, контролироваться парламентом, политическим руководством, судебной системой и гражданским обществом в целом. Гражданское правительство должно иметь ясную политическую иерархию: президент-премьер-министр-министр обороны - и четкое подчинение начальника Генерального штаба министру обороны. Независимая судебная система должна исключать возможность специализированных судов вне пределов ее ответственности (типа органов военного правосудия).

Очень интенсивным и в то же время весьма специфическим опытом по реформированию армии и военному строительству в новом демократическом обществе после тотального поражения во Второй мировой войне обладает Германия. Этот процесс достиг своей кульминации в 90-х, когда совпал с задачей интегрировать Вооруженные силы (ВС) бывшей ГДР. Конечно, пример Германии не является матрицей для повсеместного применения, но дает пример успешной реализации концепции демократического и гражданского контроля над ВС.

Поскольку ни у кого нет идеальных и применимых повсеместно ответов на сегодняшние угрозы, просто необходимы постоянный диалог и информационный обмен на всех относящихся к делу уровнях и практическое сотрудничество там, где только оно возможно. Военное сотрудничество может быть успешным исключительно между партнерами, не только разделяющими базовые ценности демократии "на бумаге", но и в гораздо большей степени в реальных военных структурах как интегральной части демократического государства и общества. В этом заключается основная "тайна", почему НАТО не только пережило окончание холодной войны, но и продолжает расширяться, интегрировать новых членов и адаптироваться к новым угрозам, в то время как Организация Варшавского договора исчезла. Однако этот процесс не является автоматическим, он требует постоянных усилий в строительстве доверия и консенсуса, уважения жизненных интересов каждого члена и исключения односторонних, однобоких или "гегемонистских" шагов и решений. Это особая проблема для "великих держав", все еще усиливающихся или уже бывших, как показывает недавний пример. Однако и менее сильные "младшие" партнеры также должны учиться вносить свой вклад в достижение общей цели посредством более эффективного сотрудничества и конструктивной солидарности, а также разделения общих угроз и общего бремени.

Будущее сотрудничество будет зависеть от политических рамок и политического руководства, от того, окажутся ли нынешние попытки интенсифицировать и расширить практическое военное сотрудничество более успешными, чем хотя бы те, что были в прошлом.

Перманентное и тесное "реальное" военное сотрудничество с Россией будет зависеть от демократического контроля и построения демократического государства, общества и не в последнюю очередь самих российских ВС. Если идущий сегодня диалог по военной реформе и военному строительству может быть интенсифицирован и расширен, чтобы включить в него все необходимые уровни и структуры, то это может существенно помочь и действительно продвинуть взаимопонимание, и тем самым также возможности для военного сотрудничества в других практических сферах, безусловно оставляя трудные решения о том, как демократизировать и реформировать свои ВС самой России, но разделяя с ней западный опыт и "выученные трудные уроки".

Существует шанс более тесного сотрудничества с Россией "от Ванкувера до Владивостока" в случае, если упомянутые выше демократические условия будут реализованы, то есть если в России будет существовать демократический контроль и пройдет реформа ВС. Это потребует колоссальных усилий как минимум в течение последующих 10 лет главным образом от России, но также более скоординированной и эффективной поддержки со стороны партнеров России на Западе.

Мы не должны повторять одни и те же ошибки, как в 90-е годы, когда западные советники считали, что располагают успешными рецептами реформирования советской системы. Мы должны быть более скромными советниками, имея в виду наши собственные тяжелые уроки прошлого (например, реформы системы бывшей ГДР). Мы должны поощрять наших российских партнеров более глубоко и реалистично изучать и внедрять принципы демократических реформ ВС. Этот информационный обмен на всех уровнях и в обоих направлениях должен быть более честным и более открытым, нежели в прошлом.

Manfred Diehl

Atlantic Council of the United States

"The priority challenges facing the United States and Europe in the world - especially the threats of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - require effective cooperation with Russia. At the same time, there are growing concerns that Russia's expected transition to a western-style democracy and market economy is stalled, and that authoritarian tendencies are becoming more prevalent."

Henry E. Catto, Chairman of the Atlantic Council, February 2005

The following excerpt comes from the February 2005 Atlantic Council
report Re-Engaging Russia: The Case for a Joint U.S.-EU Effort. The
report is based on a workshop of U.S. and European Russian specialists
convened by the U.S. Atlantic Council on January 10-11, 2005. The full text can be found here

"The evolution of the Russian political system has become a matter of increasing concern for both the United States and the EU. As with economic reform, they share a general objective: development of an open society with access both to and from the West, and a politically responsive state that is accountable to its citizens. They also share a rather gloomy assessment of the Russian situation. Having once viewed Russia as in transition toward a western democratic political system, many U.S. and European analysts now believe that even past progress in that direction may be threatened with reversal.

There is a range of views about Russian political evolution, but President Putin is centralizing power in the Kremlin, sometimes to the detriment of other state bodies that might play a balancing role. Increasingly, the Russian state - and especially the office of the president - is accountable neither to its citizens, nor to other Russian institutions, nor to the international community. Where this will end is an open question: some see a failed state in Russia's future, while other views are much less dire. Although some activists have been imprisoned, few see a revival of totalitarianism, given the exposure of Russians to the west. But the near future will be difficult for non-governmental organizations and others working for more openness,
especially since such groups have been blamed for the "loss" of Georgia
and Ukraine.

If the EU and the United States have few levers that could influence the course of Russian economic policy, they have even less influence in the political realm. Direct action by the United States and EU is likely to backfire, creating resentment and allowing those opposed to the development of genuine democracy to strengthen their positions. Some observers warn that current western criticisms of Putin are used to create a feeling that Russia is under siege, thus justifying steps towards a more authoritarian political system.

Moreover, the levers that had proven so valuable in guiding the transition of other Warsaw Pact countries - prospective membership in NATO and the EU - are not expected to be available to Russia. While some fear that this has created an artificial division in Europe, the Russian government has indicated that it does not see membership in either institution as consistent with Russian interests or status. It prefers special partnerships, such as the NATO-Russia Council, and there has been
significant cooperation in that body. But institutions such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that focus on domestic reforms are increasingly regarded as troublesome by the Putin government, which has made increasingly intensive efforts to discredit and even weaken them.

For the United States and the European Union, the question is whether to be tough with the Putin administration and make domestic reform a requirement for greater cooperation in the international arena. During the Cold War, Soviet domestic behavior was key in determining U.S. and European policies toward the USSR. If Russia was to return to a modified form of authoritarianism, should the East-West relationship again chill? Few question that U.S. and EU leaders should continue to press President Putin on these matters, and do so bluntly (at least in private), consistently, and in a coordinated fashion. It is also important to take opportunities - such as in the State Department annual human rights report - to describe the realities of the Russian situation, without lecturing the Kremlin about what should be changed.
Despite concerns about the course of events in Russia, it is unrealistic to expect the West to disengage, given the need for Russian cooperation against terrorism and nonproliferation, along with the increasing interaction between Russia and the EU. Instead, the United States and the EU should look for opportunities to make clear to the Russian government that international engagement requires the upholding of certain standards. Participation in operations with NATO, for example, requires that Russian troops meet certain standards of preparedness and behavior. If cooperation in the fight against terrorism is to be enhanced, Russian law enforcement must meet basic standards of competence and honesty. Russia's chairing of the G8 in 2006 brings with it wider international legitimacy but also certain responsibilities.

U.S. - EU cooperation should focus on maintaining access to Russian civil society and pressing for a state that has some measure of accountability to its citizens and others. Russian civil society should also have access to western norms and practices, through scholarly exchanges, cultural cooperation, people-to-people contacts, and perhaps lessrestricted travel arrangements in the future."

The Atlantic Council of the US

Pskov

On May 24 the Rally arrived to the old Russian city of Pskov. The conference “Ability to operate together: NATO-Russia Council military-to-military cooperation” brought together political and military experts, NGO representatives, students and university lecturers.

The conference was started by a welcoming message from Dmitry Shahov, a Deputy Governor of Pskov region. Sergey Markov, member of the Russian Civic chamber, called the participants to develop further on the cooperation in the framework of the NATO-Russia Council. Representatives of those NATO Member states, which acted as co-organizers of the Rally events in Pskov, Marina Kaljurand, Ambassador of Estonia to Russia and Andris Teikmanis, Ambassador of Latvia to Russia, also welcomed the event in their speeches, underlining the importance of Pskov region for cross-border cooperation with the Baltic region.

Isabelle Francois, Head of the NATO Information Office in Moscow, shared her impressions on the part of the Rally that had already passed and stressed the importance of a fight against stereotypes.

The working session of the conference “NATO-military cooperation” chaired by Marina Kaljurand, Ambassador of Estonia to Russia, comprised speeches by Per Carlsen, Ambassador of Denmark to Russia, General Consul of Lithuania in Saint-Petersburg Eitvydas Bajarunas and Andjeis Vilmusons, Head of department in the Latvian Ministry of Defence, Lieutenant Colonel Terras, a representative of the General Staff of the Estonian Armed Forces and by General Mayorov, head of the Russia-NATO Centre for social adaptation of the retired military.

After a break, participants of the Rally were invited to attend an experts’ round table, moderated by Andris Teikmanis, Ambassador of Latvia to Russia. Kerem Alp, representative of the NATO Political Affairs and Security Policy Division, General Vladimir Nikishin, representative of the Russian Ministry of Defence, General Kurt Herrmann, Head of the NATO Military Liaison Mission in Moscow, Air Commodore Andy Verdon, Derence and Air Attache of the United Kingdom and Alexander Golts, Deputy Chief Editor of the Russian Internet magazine “Ezhednevny Zhurnal” contributed to the discussion.

The conference was followed by a press point and a Youth forum held in Pskov Polytechnic University with participation of Russian, Latvian and Estonian students.

The Rally programme also included a concert by Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian musicians, and a photo exhibition. In the evening the guests of the Rally attended a reception, organized by consulates of Latvia and Estonia.

Here you may find some photos from the Rally events in Pskov.

Jüri Luik, Ambassador of Estonia to the US, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minster of Defence

The roots of today’s NATO-Russia co-operation go back to the important events of last decade of the 20th century. These dynamic processes led to the signing of Rome Declaration in May 2002, laying foundations to the NATO-Russia Council. Since then, this co-operation has witnessed achievements, but could certainly be even more active. Today’s security risks demand continued commitment from all of us.

Co-operation of the NATO-Russia Council is designed to meet the needs of participants. Regular high-level political meetings are guiding this work. There are also various mechanisms and tools set up under the NATO-Russia Council’s umbrella to advance practical side of it. All 27 nations are equal. Common decisions are made under consensus principle.

Political dialogue between NATO Allies and the Russian Federation has been without doubt instrumental for enhancement of better understanding. The old-era stereotypes are steadily fading away making place for more open and sincere relationship. World is not the same as decades ago, NATO is not the same, Russia is also moving. NATO presents itself as modern, effective organization, which holds dear the values of democracy.

At the same time NATO is facing new threats – such as terrorism – stemming from outside the Euro-Atlantic area; and so the NRC, which is developing its project for example in Afghanistan. In addition to that co-operation in non-proliferation, crisis management, civil emergencies and military-to-military fields are on the agenda, to name just a few.

The year before the 5th Anniversary of the Rome Declaration, Estonia considers the joint undertakings and activities within the NATO-Russia Council as mutually beneficial. However, states are not the only actors in this dialogue. NATO-RussiaCouncil can only be meaningful, if parliamentarians, journalists, students and other interested groups share the aims of the Council. This can be achieved only by strengthening dialogue between civil societies of NATO countries and Russia. NATO-Russia Rally is providing a forum for such a dialogue. The Rally is a natural part of the calendar of NATO-Russia events, capturing the spirit of our co-operation.

Jüri Luik

Janis Eichmanis, Permanent Representative of Latvia in NATO

On May 24th, the "NATO-Russia Rally 2006" will visit Pskov, one of nine cities in the Russian Federation hosting discussions intended to raise public awareness of the work and accomplishments of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) and its 27 member states.

We can be pleased that the part of the rally which features Pskov was organised jointly by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Afairs along with Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

Latvia supports increasing the visibility of NATO in Russia. We hope this event in Pskov contributes to better public understanding of what the NATO-Russia Council is doing and of its potential. NRC work should not be a secret that breeds misunderstandings and misperceptions.

We chose to support the part of the NATO Rally which takes place in the region of Russia which is our closest neighbour. Developing the capacity to conceive and implement joint activities is a primary raison d'etre of the NATO-Russia framework.

Like NATO itself, the NRC is not meant to be a talking shop; it is meant to be action-oriented. And the new century has begun with reminders that we have certain issues to deal with that cannot be solved unilaterally, and where partnership with Russia could provide solutions (for example, with respect to terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, etc.).

NATO is now closer to Russia and to Russians than it has ever been before. And, all Russians ought to know how closely their country cooperates with the Alliance in matters which could make a difference in their lives. More people need to know that NATO and Russia have teamed up in the work to prevent heroin from flowing westward from Afghanistan. More need to know that Russia together with NATO will be working to reduce the chances that terrorists can take advantage of shipping in the Mediterranean.

Last year, the lives of a crew on a Russian submarine off Kamchatka were saved because of cooperation developed at the NRC. How many residents of Latvia and Russia know of this incident? If they don't, this is a pity. It means that NATO and Russia have not done enough to inform the public about the good that comes from their mutual work.

The NATO-Russia Rally shows how we can raise the visibility of NRC work, not just in capital cities, but in the countryside hundreds of kilometres from the capitals. In democracies, it is not just the capitals that decide the future of the country.

The city of Riga was chosen to host the next NATO Summit at the end of November 2006. This Summit is expected to focus on the adaptation and transformation of the Alliance, and how to make it more mobile, more rugged, and more effective. We expect the people of Russia will be watching the Riga Summit with great interest since the NATO-Russia relationship will evolve with the changes under discussion at NATO.

Janis Eichmanis

Murmansk

On 22nd of May the Rally reached the city of Murmansk, situated in the Northern Russia. The participants of the Rally were welcomed by Olga Buch, a vice-rector of Murmansk State Technical University, who briefed the guests on the work that is going on in the University, including a special re-training program for retired Northern fleet personnel, which is maintained since 2001 due to the support of Norwegian government.

The conference “NATO-Russia Council: from bilateral to multilateral cooperation” that has been held in the University started with a welcoming message by Sergey Subbotin, Head of Department in the Administration of Murmanskaya oblast (region), who has read out greetings from the region’s governor Yuri Yevdokimov to the participants of the Rally. The following speeches were given by Olga Buch, vice-rector of the University and Isabelle Francois, Head of the NATO Information Office in Moscow and Kjetil Skogrand, Deputy Foreign Minister of Norway.

The conference’s first panel “Regional Security Challenges and International Responses” included speeches by Hector Cowan, Consul of Canada in Saint Petersburg, Vladimir Muzychenko, representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Subbotin, Head of Department in the regional Administration, Benedikt Jonsson, Ambassador of Iceland to Russia, and Igor Slobodnik, Permanent Representative of Slovakia in NATO.

The second panel “Future Perspectives for Regional and International Cooperation in the Baltic Sea and Arctic Regions” concentrated on issues of nuclear security, ecology and treatment of outdated military submarines. Guy Roberts, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Policy on Weapons of Mass Destruction, Roger Jorgensen, representative of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, Michael Washer, Senior Program Manager in the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and Vice-Admiral Ferdinando Sanfelice di Monteforte, Italian Military Representative in NATO presented their views on the topic.

An Icelandic movie “The Children of Nature” has been shown to participants of the Rally. The evening reception has been organized by the Consulate of Norway.

Here you may find some photos from the event.

Benedikt Jonsson, Ambassador of Iceland to the Russian Federation

It is clear that Russia and NATO share common interests that call for consultation and cooperation in security affairs. It can also be argued that the NATO-Russia Council, which was established in 2002, has been an important tool to adapt to changes in the post Cold War era and has fostered dialogue and practical cooperation between NATO, its member states and Russia.

If we look back at the progress since the Rome Summit four years ago, it gives indications of what has been possible and what has not been possible to achieve in the context of this cooperation and identifies issue areas for further development. In a general sense it seems to me that we can be relatively satisfied with the progress so far, at the same time as recognising that there is certainly room for improvement in various areas. Iceland has particularly welcomed more in depth and expansion of the political dialogue within the NATO Russia Council.

I would also like to stress that NATO today is not the same organization that it was during the Cold War, when its sole purpose was to guard its members from possible confrontation with the Soviet Union. This important fact cannot be stressed enough. If we look at NATO missions in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Iraq and the cooperation it has with partners in the EAPC framework and in the Mediterranean Dialogue countries (Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Tunis, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania) we can see how the agenda of the Alliance has evolved into a much broader based and diverse agenda in the security and defence sphere. Few, if any, international organizations have gone through as profound changes in the last 15 years as NATO. NATO missions and the security agenda are profoundly different from the past, even if the core role of the Alliance remains the same as before, to provide security and defence for its members.

H.E. Benedikt Jonsson, Ambassador of Iceland to the Russian Federation

Moscow

The Moscow Rally event started in the evening on May 17 in a little bit unusual way – with a hockey game between legendary players of the Soviet time and the joint team of the NATO-Russia Council.

On 18th of May the main conference was opened in MGIMO (Moscow State University of International Relations) by a Vice-Rector Andrei Melville. In his welcoming remarks Dr. Melville stressed that we shouldn’t think about politics as a “zero-sum game”, where the victory of the one unavoidably means the defeat of the other.

Andrei Kelin, representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who worked closely together with NATO officials in the time of NATO-Russia Council creation, expressed his view of the current transformation of NATO. Mr. Kelin said that in spite of all the existing differences, Russia and NATO definitely have a field for cooperation since they have common threats to fight against and they are interested in economic and political stability in the world. Mr. Kelin listed some concerns that Russia still has in its relations with NATO, such as new military infrastructure being deployed in Eastern European member states of NATO and a postponed ratification of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) by NATO members. However, Mr. Kelin underlined that Russia has an opportunity to discuss these and other concerns in the framework of the NATO-Russia Council, which presents a new level of cooperation, higher than those existing in Russia’s relations with the EU and OSCE. Mr. Kelin concluded that the relations between Russia and NATO can still be significantly improved, assuming that the transformation of the Alliance will continue in a mutually beneficial way. During Q&A session Mr. Kelin pointed out that he sees hypothetical future violations of international law as a main factor that could lead to serious problems in NATO-Russia relations. Mr. Kelin also said that Russia is aware of the fact that further enlargements of NATO will come and it’s very important for NATO to pay attention to Russia’s interests during this process.

Paul Fritch, Head of the NATO Russia and Ukraine Relations Section, has called the NATO-Russia Council the unique format of partnership, where the partner has the same status as each of the participating allied nations. Mr. Fritch underlined the striking difference in NATO-Russia cooperation before NATO-Russia Council was created, when no more than 7 events where annually conducted by partners, and after it has been established, when the number of the events grow from 21 to the current 60. Mr. Fritch stressed that NATO remains first of all a community of values. He complained that it’s still more often for him to hear from the Russian partners on what they would like to avoid in the relations with NATO, instead of what they would like to achieve together with NATO, which is much more important.

Dr. Alexei Bogaturov, the Dean of Political Science Faculty in MGIMO, reminded his forecast, made four years ago, that Russia is slowly moving towards the status of an associated member of NATO. According to Dr. Bogaturov, the forecast is proved right by the last years’ developments. In spite of the progress achieved, Dr. Bogaturov confessed that it’s usually harder for Russia to talk to NATO as a whole than to each of NATO members separately. He also stressed that it’s only now, when Russia noticed that the internal structure of NATO is marked by a complex and usually unpleasant pluralism between its members, which makes compromises inevitable, since all the decisions in NATO are taken by a consensus. Dr. Bogaturov also raised the issue of NATO enlargement, especially the case of Ukraine, saying that Ukraine can hardly broke its outstandingly strong ties with Russia and that NATO membership for Ukraine may eventually draw Russia in NATO. Dr. Bogaturov underlined that NATO is not only a partner but also a neighbour of Russia and that it is both easier and harder to cooperate with a neighbour. He warned that some of the new members of NATO still want to play Cold War games, trying to form anti-Russia feelings in NATO. Dr. Bogaturov believes that a consensus between old and new members of NATO will be inevitably reached but it’s important to avoid it to be harmful for Russia.

From left to right: Alexei Bogaturov, Andrei Melville, Paul Fritch, Andrei Kelin

Daniel Russell, Deputy Chief of the US Mission to Russia, spoke about the changes in international system that lead to the transformation of NATO and its relations with Russia. The more Russia and NATO share common values, Mr. Russell said, the more cooperation will be possible.

Sergey Rogov, Director of the Institute for the US and Canadian Studies (Russian Academy of Sciences), stressed that NATO remains an organization of collective security, not a peacekeeping one, and that Ukraine’s membership in NATO may seriously damage NATO-Russia relations. Dr. Rogov proposed a reform for NATO-Russia Council to transform it into a decision-making body. He also suggested Russia to became a full-scale member of the NATO mission in Afghanistan and to create a special joint NATO-Russia command for airlift capabilities. Dr. Rogov also presented his idea of an educational body, a NATO-Russia college, which could help the partners to understand each other better.

Luis Filipe Lobo-Fernandes, professor in the University of Minho in Portugal, stressed the indivisibility of security of the Euro-Atlantic area in contemporary world. He called NATO allies to concentrate on Russia’s engagement as a full participant of an institutionalized security framework.

Gleb Pavlovsky, the president of the Effective Policy Foundation, confessed that a distrust towards NATO in Russia is growing and it has objective reasons. He touched the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine, saying that Ukraine is in serious need of money for structural reforms, instead of spending them on preparations for membership. Mr. Pavlovsky underlined that Europe now consists of two unique geopolitical projects, namely Russia and the European Union, which are both suspicious towards NATO. Thus, according to Pavlovsky, the regional security system cannot be completed till the EU will define clearly its attitude towards NATO and until Russia will reach a consensus with NATO on the future of the Central Asia. During Q&A session Mr. Pavlovsky also said that he sees NATO as a kind of communication system, which is good to have in this capacity but which has never really succeeded as a military organization and cannot be in the centre of Russia’s interests.

Gen. Anatoly Mazurkevich, Head of the Department for International Military Cooperation in Russian Ministry of Defence, spoke about the work that NATO and Russia are now performing together. Gen. Mazurkevich underlined that we can battle against new challenges only by standing together and paying attention to each other’s interests.

From left to right: Luis Filipe Lobo-Fernandes, Andrei Melville, Gleb Pavlovsky, Sergey Rogov

Right after the conference the participants had a chance to listen to Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO Secretary General, who joined the event via the video-link. Mr. Scheffer underlined that shared interests are the foundation of NATO-Russia cooperation. He listed the latest achievements in NATO-Russia cooperation. Mr. Scheffer stressed that NATO-Russia cooperation should find ground in public support and the NATO-Russia Rally is especially important in this sence. Mr. Scheffer called the partners not to pretend that they agree on everything but to have an open dialogue instead. Students, who attended the conference, had an opportunity to ask several questions to the NATO Secretary General.

Later that day a video-link was organized between MGIMO and Goettingen University students, specializing in political science. Young people from Russia and Germany discussed their views of NATO and different visions of European identity.

The programme of the Rally also included the experts’ round table “Russian Public Opinion on NATO”, where the results of the survey conducted by an All-Russian Public Opinion Research Centre were presented.

Two photo exhibitions on NATO-Russia cooperation were opened on the day of the Rally in MGIMO and the State Library of Foreign Literature. The events in MGIMO and in the Library were accompanied by protests against NATO's presence, organized by radical political movements.

A Russian movie “Lichny nomer” has been shown to participants of the Rally in the Embassy of Romania. The movie has been followed by a Q&A session with an author of the movie Yuri Sagaydak and a reception, organized by the Embassy.

Yuri Sagaydak and Nathalie Vogel, Project officer at the NATO Information Office in Moscow

The day of the Rally in Moscow has been finalized by a concert in the “Galina Vishnevskaya’s theatre” and the evening reception by the Embassy of Italy.

Update: Some photos from the Rally events in Moscow are here

George Robertson, NATO Secretary General in 1999 - 2003

The NATO/Russia Summit meeting in Rome in 2002 was one of the most important events in my life. The establishment of the NATO/Russia Council, with 20 countries sitting as equals, placed the final nail in the coffin of the Cold War and was a truly significant event in our history.

Sitting as Chairman at a table with the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the 20 nations - The US, Russia, France, UK and Germany but with tiny Iceland and Luxembourg as well, was a pretty remarkable experience. To hear the words, and see the body language, was to realise that the World had changed forever.

But I am not naive or gullible. Words on a summers day can disappear like the heat. So I had every word of intended cooperation recorded and then published - in Russian, English, French and Italian. My intention was to remind the Leaders of their promises and to ensure that they lived up to them.

I am glad now to report that the NATO/Russia Council - bring together old adversaries in living political and security cooperation, is still alive and well. The deployment of two Russian warships to the NATO Mediterranean fleet on anti-terror patrol is just the latest outcome of this remarkable reconciliation.

George Robertson

Volgograd

On 17th of May NATO-Russia Rally moved to Volgograd. On the eve of the event the guests were invited to attend an excursion to historical monuments of the city famous for its role during the World War II. The day of the Rally started with a visit of NATO and Russian MFA representatives to the Administration of the Volgogradskaya oblast (region), where they were welcomed by Alexander Shilin and Yuri Sizov, first deputies of the region’s governor. The participants of the meeting expressed an intention to develop ties between Russia and NATO on the regional level.

The conference “NATO-Russia historical perspective – from stereotypes to mutual trust” held in Volgograd Academy of Public Administration was attended by approximately 450 students from universities of Volgograd and the Regional Elite School, members of the City Council, activists from political parties and businessmen. The welcoming messages were delivered by Isabelle Francois, the Head of the NATO Information Office in Moscow, Yuri Sizov, first deputy governor of Volgogradskaya oblast and Mikhail Sukiasyan, the rector of the Volgograd Academy of Public Administration. First speeches were followed by an award ceremony for laureates of students essay contest.

During the first session of the conference “NATO-Russia Council: today and tomorrow” the Ambassador Alexander Alekseev, representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peter Lunak, Senior Programme Coordinator in NATO Public Diplomacy Division, Vyacheslav Yagubkin, Head of International Department in the Volgograd Academy of Public Administration and Lieutenant Colonel Marcel de Haas, representative of the Royal Netherlands Air Force, expressed their views of NATO – Russia relations and their future. During the Q&A session the role of stereotypes in NATO-Russia relations got in the centre of the discussion.

The second session “NATO-Russia Relations: Retrospective and Historical Perspective” included speeches by Alexander Kubyshkin, Head of Regional Studies and International Relations Department in the Volgograd State University, Zoltan Biro, a member of the Hungarian Prime Minister’s Advisory Board on International and Security Policy, Michel Duray, Director of NATO Information and Documentation Centre in Ukraine and Viktor Pilipenko, Vice Rector on Science and Research in the Volgograd Academy of Public Administration.

Later on, the video-conference for students was held with participation of James Appathurai, NATO Spokesman, who answered the questions raised by the audience and explained the work that he is doing in NATO.

In the evening Russian and foreign guests of the Rally along with essay contest winners attended a reception organized on the board of a ship on Volga-river.

Update: Here you may find some photos taken during the Rally events in Volgograd.

Samara

On 15th of May the NATO-Russia Rally has reached Samara. On the eve of the event the ambassador of Luxemburg in Russia welcomed the participants of the Rally at the reception. A Luxemburgish movie “J’ai toujours voulu être une sainte” has been shown to the guests.

The main conference “NATO-Russia Council: New threats to security” was hold in the Alabin museum and brought together more than 200 students, teachers and journalists. The conference has been opened with a speech of Igor Vershinin, the rector of Samara State Pedagogical University. The welcoming remarks also followed from Isabelle Francois, the Head of NATO Information Office in Moscow and Nicolai Chibaeff, an advisor for cooperation and cultural affairs to the ambassador of France in Russia. The ambassadors of Luxemburg and Slovenia in Russia also welcomed the participants and explained the role of NATO membership for their countries.

At the entrance to the conference venue, a group of Russian radical political organizations protested against NATO coming to Russia.

One of the members of Samara regional parliament used an opportunity to address the audience, underlining the necessity for Russians to be vigilant, when judging about NATO – Russia relations.

During the first session of the conference the participants had a chance to listen to the Permanent representatives of Slovenia and France to NATO, and a representative of Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

After a break Sergey Markedonov, a senior expert in the Institute for Political and Military Analysis, and Peter Kovacs, an official from NATO Political Affairs and Security Policy Division, expressed their views on prospects for Russia – NATO cooperation in the South Caucasus region.

The speeches were followed by a discussion and a press point.

During the second session of the conference the problems of conflict resolution and security cooperation were debated. Speakers concentrated on Russia and NATO cooperation in the fight against terrorism.

After the conference a Slovenian movie “Idle Running” has been shown to participants of the Rally.

Update: here you can find some photos from the event.

Yekaterinburg

May 13 – the Rally in Yekaterinburg – the centre of the Ural region of Russia. The conference “New Threats and Common Responses” took place in the Ural State University. Welcoming remarks were delivered by Vladimir Tretyakov, the rector of the University, Viktor Koksharov, Minister of Sverdlovskaya oblast (region) of the Russian Federation, by the General Consuls of the UK and the Czech Republic and by the Head of NATO Information office in Moscow.

Anthony Brenton, the ambassador of the UK in Russia, Alexey Gromyko, Deputy Director of the Institute of Europe (Russian Academy of sciences) and Gomas Szunyog, Director of the Eastern European Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic, shared their views of NATO – Russia cooperation.

During the second session of the conference “Preparing Forces against New Threats”, a broad spectrum of military issues has been discussed by John Colston, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning, Vladimir Bulgakov, Deputy Commander of the Land Armed Forces of Russia and Jan Michal, Deputy Ambassador of the Czech Republic in Russia.

The Youth Forum “How can we build effective cooperation and partnership within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council” that started after the conference, was moderated by Tatyana Parkhalina, Head of the Centre for European Security and Konstantin Eggert, editor-in-chief of the BBC Russian service.

During the day, some protesters under the auspices of the Russian Communist Party were demonstrating in the city with anti-NATO mottos.

The programme of the Rally in Yekaterinburg also included a photo-exhibition “Britain and Russia” and a Czech movie “Kolya” that was shown for the participants of the Rally.

Here you may find a report in Russian about Yekaterinburg station of the Rally. And here are some photos from the event.

Jean Cadet, Ambassadeur de France en Fédération de Russie

Ensemble face aux nouvelles menaces à la Sécurité

La France et la Russie travaillent ensemble, quotidiennement et concrètement, pour la sécurité en Europe. Nos pays sont unis, face aux menaces du terrorisme international et de la prolifération des armes de destruction massive. Elles partagent le même objectif de paix et de stabilité sur continent européen et dans le monde.

Elles coopèrent bilatéralement, mais aussi dans le cadre d’enceintes multilatérales, comme le Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies et le G8, et dans des forums régionaux, comme le Conseil Otan-Russie et l’OSCE. Je n’oublie pas non plus la coopération dans le cadre de l’espace de sécurité extérieur commune de l’Union européenne et de la Russie.

Je suis donc très heureux que l’Ambassade de France puisse contribuer, avec l’Alliance française, à l’organisation de la Conférence de Samara sur les nouveaux défis à la sécurité. Je vous invite à y participer nombreux et remercie d’avance tous les partenaires, russes et alliés, qui y ont œuvré.

Son Excellence M. Jean CADET

Ambassadeur de France en Fédération de Russie

Christopher N Donnelly, Senior Fellow, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom

The Current Revolution in the Nature of Conflict

The nature of conflict changes constantly. But every so often the economic, social, political and technological pressures which force that change build up, and the suddenness, the pace, breadth and extent of change reach such a pitch that they outstrip the capacity of our institutions (national and international, governmental and non-governmental) to adapt. The institutions no longer serve their purpose and, in the worst cases, break down completely. This is what characteristics a ‘revolution’ rather than evolution. Such revolutions are often given a simple date (e.g. 1789, 1914), but in fact they take place over a long period and their real consequences only make sense through time. We tend to think of them as ‘military events’. But in fact the principal drivers tend to be economic, social or political rather than military-technical. In my view, we are today in the midst of a such a revolution – not perhaps as dramatic as 1917, but which will nevertheless have a significant influence on our lives.

In this, as in any, revolution, only a fraction of things will change. The other fraction will stay the same. The problem for those of us who are living through this revolution, as with other revolutions, is that it is very difficult without the wisdom of hindsight to identify which things will change and which will stay the same.

As a result we are faced with a major problem. In a period of stability and slow evolution our greatest asset is our experience. But at times of revolution our experiences can be fatal baggage. We can no longer assume that, because something we did worked well in the past, it will continue to do so. We will need to make a correspondingly revolutionary shift in the way we think about both the risk and the response.

In my view, the main drivers of today’s revolution, which has so changed the nature of conflict, are as follows:

(a) the growing gap between rich and poor countries. The combined wealth of the richest 250 people in the world is equal to the combined annual income of the poorest 2.5 billion. Above all, the poor are now aware of the disparities.

(b) the uncontrollable proliferation of technology. Note Al Qaeda’s effective asymmetric use of technology, or the skill with which criminal gangs use modern communications technology.

(c) the information explosion. The ability to launch attacks on information systems depends not on wealth but on the cleverness of the attacker, and our opponents are just as clever as we are.

During the cold war, ‘national security’ was synonymous with ‘defence’. The more tanks and planes a country had, the safer it felt. Today this is no longer true. We need a better understanding of the nature of the real issues that now face us. These issues are complex, and the implications take time to sink in. If we do not understand the real threat, and base our defence and security planning solely on our own perception of our vulnerabilities, not only could we be very surprised by an opponent’s different perception (and exploitation) of our weaknesses, but we will also be prey to wasting effort and money on worthless defences.

We will only be able to get a deep understanding of the new issues if we get our whole ‘thinking community’ (officials, academics, technologists, social scientists, economists, as well as the military) thinking and working together. Above all, it requires that we see ourselves through the eyes of others (eg, the Arab Street).

We can no longer divide threats to security neatly into internal and external threats. We can no longer guarantee national security by military means. During most of the cold war, defence research led national technological research. This is no longer the case in most areas. Furthermore, technological developments are outstripping our capacity to learn how to exploit them and how to incorporate them effectively into defence systems. For this to happen, education and force structures need to be more flexible. Indeed, it is in times of conflict that society learns quickest. But the pace of that learning is directly proportionate to the importance we attach to the conflict and the pain it causes us. In the current conflict, this is vital and most painful for our opponents, but it is not yet seen as so important by our societies. Consequently our opponents are learning faster than we are. This is a trend which we must reverse.

We therefore face the crucial task of ensuring that our Armed Forces are appropriately structured, trained and led to meet the new challenges that will confront us. That includes ensuring their support by the population at home and their protection under international law abroad. We also need to ensure that other Government Departments, agencies, non-government organisations and the like are aware of their responsibilities and capable of doing their share of the work to ensure national security, in collaboration with the Armed Forces wherever they are deployed, as well as independently.

We are in the middle of a revolution in the nature of conflict, the impact of which reaches from top to bottom of our defence, development & security structures, home and abroad. The sooner we wake up to the implications of this new situation, the better. Surviving this revolution, preserving what is good in our system and changing what needs to change is our second great challenge. Our first challenge is identifying which is which.

Christopher N Donnelly



DISCLAIMER: This discussion paper reflects the opinions of the author alone. It does not represent in any way the views of the UK Defence Academy, the UK Ministry of Defence or any other institution.

Novosibirsk

Novosibirsk – one of the main cities of Siberia became the second station of the NATO – Russia Rally. The general conference in the Palace of Scientists “NATO-Russia Council: From Hard Security to Soft Security Issues” brought together more than 200 students and faculty members from Novosibirsk, Barnaul and Tyumen. The audience had a chance to listen to Nikolay Dikansky, the rector of Novosibirsk State University, Jean Fournet, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy, Sergey Ryabkov, the Director of All-European Cooperation Department in Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gennadiy Kulepanov, Deputy Chairman in the Siberian branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Andreas von Mettenheim, Minister in the Embassy of Germany to the Russian Federation, Lyubomir Ivanov, Chairman of the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria and Isabelle Francois, the Head of NATO Information Office in Moscow.

Later on, NATO – Russia cooperation in the field of science has been discussed.

During the day, Kurt Herrmann, the Head of NATO Military Liaison Mission in Moscow visited the Center for social adaptation of retired military personnel. NATO delegation examined the results of scientific research processed by people working in Novosibirsk, which is famous as one of the main centres of Russian hi-tech science.

The conference has been followed by a press point and a reception. The participants of the Rally could listen to a concert given by a quintet of Novosibirsk philharmonic society. An exhibition showing pictures created by Bulgarian artists has also become a part of the Rally.

The video-link organized during the Novosibirsk Rally event brought together students from Novosibirsk State University and Bulgarian Sofia State University.

The whole-day programme have been finalized by showing a German movie “Das Wunder Von Bern”.

A report in Russian on Novosibirsk station of the Rally is here

Update: Some photos taken during the Rally events in Novosibirsk can be found here

Update 2: Interview with Maj-Gen (GE AF) Kurt Herrmann, Head of the NATO Military Liaison Mission in Moscow

NATO-Russia Rally Blog: General Naumann attributes the setback in the NATO-Russia relations during the Kosovo crisis to persisting stereotypes of the Cold War. You have been appointed in June 2006 to your current position. Have you encountered them yourself?

Kurt Herrmann: The Military Liaison Mission in Moscow, the MLM, was opened immediately after the ROME Summit, end of May 2002. The rapprochement of Russia and NATO had been renewed after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in New York and Washington. And, all 27 members of the NATO-Russia Council had put the struggle against international terrorism on top of the list of their key priorities for cooperation.

When I took over from my predecessor, on 1st of June 2005, the contacts with our Russian counterparts and colleagues had already been well established. Of course, I could not expect that the experiences and stereotypes of the past had completely vanished. But, since my arrival in Moscow I have been deeply impressed by the positive changes and by the promising attitude during all my contacts with the Russian authorities.

Today, it is my firm conviction that the NRC provides the right structure and the instruments to discuss all NATO-Russia issues, also contentious ones. The MLM is an executive body of the NRC structure and I really appreciate the opportunities provided to me in contributing to the development of mutual trustful relations, especially by fostering tangible results of practical military-to-military cooperation. The further growing stability of this common basis provides superb chances for finally getting past obsolete stereotypes.


NRRB: Your speech in Novosibirsk addressed the issue of the military requirements for a changing security environment. For the ones who did not attend the conference, in short, which are they?

K.H.: During my intervention, I tried to explain some aspects of the linkage between the processes of transformation and cooperation. Therefore, I started with a brief description of the NATO military transformation process by explaining how NATO has been preparing in this field to respond to the new risks and threats.

Russia and NATO are partners in security. They share some common risks and threats which could be better countered, if a close cooperation in our responses were fully established. NATO-Russia cooperation is dedicated to support peace and stability. I stressed that any form of a military contribution to this overall goal requires interoperability. This means that forces of the Russian Federation and of NATO members should possess adequate capabilities which would enable them to operate together, if the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Alliance decided to do so. These capabilities to cooperate are required right across a broad spectrum. This spectrum spans from such things as working together in support of peace operations under UN mandate to something more intense and integrated, such as crisis response operation.

In the next part, I explained some prominent examples of the Russian-NATO military-to-military cooperation, especially focussing on language courses, courses for commanders and staff officers, Command Post Exercises, Live Field Training Exercises, and workshops. Particularly, some practical steps in trying to achieve interoperability between the land, naval and air forces of the Russian Federation and NATO forces were mentioned.

I am convinced that all players involved in the ongoing NATO-Russia military-to-military activities understand the importance of keeping the momentum of progress in the cooperation process going.


NRRB: You visited the regional Filial of the Russia-NATO centre in Novosibirsk (http://www.centre.russia-nato.info/), what were your impressions and how would you explain the work of this Centre to our readers?

K.H.: In fact, it was a visit to both the Russia-NATO Centre for social adaptation of military personnel and to the Siberian Educational Centre “Nadezhda”. Both centres are collocated and work in close cooperation.

The education and training of military personnel in preparation for their reintegration into civilian employment should be of high importance for any nation. We expect our soldiers to serve in loyalty and to take a high risk in fulfilling their mission. Therefore, they deserve to be taken care of in many respects and to be provided sound material security and economic prospects for their lives as well as for the lives of their families. I got the impression that the training courses at the Centres in Novosibirsk are well established and suited to meet the relevant conditions.

Victor Ivanovitch Goljuchkov and Jury Dmitrievich Prochorov explained the mission and the structure of their centres and provided me a detailed insight into their work. I left with the conviction that both centres in Novosibirsk are doing a professional and most successful job which deserves high praise.

And, I would like to add: the existing capabilities and the manifold possibilities of the centres for training of military personnel in preparation for a successful re-integration into civilian life and employment could also be regarded as most valuable contributions to the attractiveness of temporary military service.


NRRB: How do you explain the fact that few people only know about the ongoing cooperation between the Russian Federation and NATO?

K.H.: Russian-NATO cooperation in the format of NATO-Russia Council activities only started four years ago. Unfortunately, the conduct of seminars and workshops on experts’ level normally does not attract much attention in wider circles of the population. The situation has started to change some time ago. Particularly, the upcoming participation of Russian ships in the NATO-led Operation ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR, and Command Post as well as Field Training Exercises will most probably increase public attention. And, not to forget, the NATO-Russia Rally 2006 has provided superb opportunities to inform the Russian public about the cooperation between the Russian Federation and NATO and to exchange views with a lot of interested people. Hopefully, the Rally has initiated a process capable of further enhancing the necessary dialogue.

General Klaus Naumann, Former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee

The North Atlantic Alliance was created in April 1949 by 12 founding members. The Alliance was designed as a politico-military organisation to consolidate the battered democracies of post World War II in Europe and to defend against the threat of aggression. Lord Ismay, the first SecGen, coined the famous phrase: NATO has to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.

But the world has changed radically and so has the Alliance. In fact, since its foundation, NATO has been in a continuous process of adaptation. The evolution of NATO's strategy from Massive Retaliation, to Flexible Response and then the Rome 1991 Strategic Concept and the Washington 1999 Strategic Concept bears witness to a process of permanent change. What remained unchanged, however, were NATO’s common values and visions which include freedom and security; a just and lasting peace; democracy, human rights, individual liberty and the rule of law; cooperation and solidarity; free market institutions and free enterprise. It were these values which gave people hope and inspiration and it was NATO’s concept of dialogue and credible defence which led eventually to the end of the division of Europe.

At its London Summit of 1990 NATO declared the Cold War over and extended a hand of friendship to its erstwhile adversaries. The new and broad approach to security, based on cooperation and dialogue began. London is the port of embarkation in which NATO’s long and still unfinished journey towards the Europe whole and free began.

I saw this process of partnership and cooperation unfolding from its inception to more or less the beginning of the NATO - Russia cooperation in 1997. Although most of my professional life had been characterised by the East-West antagonism of the Cold War I saw this cooperation as a true new hope for a better future. It became a matter of heart and of rationality for me to contribute to this process and it was one of the big disappointments at the end of my military career that NATO and Russia suffered a severe setback over the Kosovo-Crisis. To some extent this setback was possible since too many on both sides still had the clichés of the past in their minds and both sides had failed to win their peoples hearts and minds for their bold initiative of building a partnership.

It seems to me that this stumbling stone is still on our common road despite the progress achieved in the NATO-Russia Council. Our people must understand that the dangers we are confronted with are dangers which might hurt Russia in the very same way as they might hurt the 26 NATO nations. The complex new risks to peace and stability, including oppression, ethnic conflict, economic distress, the collapse of political order, terrorism, organised international crime, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the danger of paralysing societies through cyber attack do not stop at international borders. There is simply no alternative but to cooperate since the transnational nature of risks and dangers require common transnational and trans-alliance responses. The basis of such a badly needed cooperation is mutual trust and mutual respect. For this reason NATO and Russia must meet each other with openness and full transparency and the young generation must not repeat the mistakes of the days of confrontation when the desire to dominate, secrecy and mistrust led to an arms race which ruined the hopes and aspirations of more than one generation. To learn this lesson from the past is an obligation which both those in governments and all the citizens of the NATO nations and Russia have to shoulder. We simply owe it to our children and grand children.

Klaus Naumann

Vladivostok

On 11th of May the Rally has successfully passed its first station - Vladivostok.
Here you may find an official report in Russian and here - some photos from the event.

One of our friends from Vladivostok, Alexander Kaidanovich is writing:

"Everything was organized on a high level. In action more than 400 students, post-graduate students, teachers of universities of city of Vladivostok have taken part.Within the framework of the conference two big themes were mentioned: « the General lines of the communications and cooperation on the sea » and « Search and rescue on the sea, safety on the sea and military activity ». Reports of representatives of armed forces of Canada and USA, and also employees of the press-service of the NATO, Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Science, universities of city of Vladivostok were offered to attention of students.The youth which has gathered in a hall, has taken a keen interest to all performances and has actively taken part in the developed discussion. The most actual appeared themes of prospects of mutual relation of the Russia - NATO and questions of military cooperation.Participants also have taken pleasure in a beautiful hour concert of creative collectives of the Youth centre of Far East state university.Participants of conference have taken part in videoconference with the assistant to the ambassador of USA in Russia Daniel Russell. Behind a round table acute problems of mutual relation of Russia and the NATO, including in a context of the Russian-American attitudes and a role of USA in the NATO were discussed.During all time the joint exhibition "Russia - NATO: a strategic partnership" worked, to which was shown special interest."

If anyone, who took part in the Rally in Vladivostok, has some impressions to share - please, do it in comments to this post in English, Russian or French.

Jamie Shea, Director of Policy Planning in the Private Office of the NATO Secretary General

I think one of NATO's most remarkable achievements over the past decade has been the establishment of a permanent relationship with Russia. As someone who first started for NATO during the dark days of the Cold War, and in the midst of the Euro missile crisis of the 1980s, it was by no means evident that NATO and Russia could ever be on speaking terms. We carried a very heavy historical legacy and it was always clear to me that both sides would need to make an enormous psychological as well as political effort to put that past behind them. In addition, many of NATO's policies since the Cold War, however justified they have seemed to NATO insiders, clearly struck Russians as hostile or unnecessary. I am referring to NATO Enlargement or to the Kosovo air campaign of 1999 or to the way in which NATO has engaged Partners on the territory of the former Soviet Union. Explaining these policies and convincing Russians that they were not directed against Russian security interests has also been a major challenge, not helped obviously by the fact that we were also carrying the Cold War legacy behind us at the same time.

Therefore I find it all the more impressive that today NATO is able to hold a major public diplomacy rally across Russia and that the Russian authorities are actively participating, helping us to better explain ourselves to the Russian public and not only among the Moscow based political and intellectual elites. It is obvious that we can only cooperate productively if we see each other as partners and as sharing a common responsibility to build security in the Euro Atlantic area. This would not be easy if Russian continued to see NATO as an organization working against their interests or if they place a negative interpretation on everything that the Alliance does. Therefore I am hoping very much that the NATO Russia Rally will really mark a turning point in convincing Russians that NATO is serious about engaging Russia and that the NATO Russia Council is not an exercise in public relations but a real working body where NATO and Russia come together frequently to share analyses or agree to disagree occasionally while recognising that because we disagree on certain points doesn't mean that we can't work well together on all the others. The fact that we have been able to increase every year the number of practical NATO Russia activities (in such fields as peacekeeping doctrine, combating terrorism, cooperative air space management and ballistic missile defence) despite having political differences from time to time demonstrates that our relationship is now a mature one which both sides regard as permanent and even natural. Thus we have come a very long way from the late 1990s when disagreements over the Balkans put our relationship on hold for several months at the time and threatened to terminate it entirely.

I still believe that the NATO Russia relationship is full of unexplored potential and as in any relationship the permanent danger is routine, taking each other for granted and lack of creativity. In this respect I think that we have to expand our dialogue to the key topics which are on the international agenda today, for instance energy security where Russia is clearly a major global player. We also have to analyse challenges such as proliferation and terrorism which threaten both of us in equal measure and we need to involve Russia more in NATO's peace and stabilisation missions. The fact that Russia is about to join our Active Endeavour maritime patrolling mission in the Mediterranean shows what can be done with good will on both sides. I believe that NATO needs to be more present in Russia despite the excellent work which is done by our two missions in Moscow - one dealing with public diplomacy and the other with military liaison. For instance, I would be happy if the North Atlantic Council of NATO Ambassadors would visit Russia more often and hold meetings there. I believe it would also be useful if Ministers from a number of difference departments in the Russian government could participate in the NATO Russia Council in their areas of expertise, for instance energy security. At the moment NATO and Russia have just concluded a major reflection on how to take the relationship forward. It contains many ambitious and interesting proposals and our ability and political will to implement all of these in the months ahead will be the test of our credibility.

Jamie Shea

The Rally Programme

The programme of the Rally is now out for most of the cities. Russian, English and French versions of the programme can be found here .
(The programme files are in PDF format to be read with Adobe Reader, which you can download for free from this web-site)

The Rally is about to start

This May turns out to be the month of Russia in NATO :-) Here is the monthly wallpaper proposed by NATO to everyone interested:



(Left button mouse click on the picture to get a larger version)

Hello world!

NATO Russia Rally is an ambitious project. Its aim is to establish better mutual understanding between the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the people of Russia. The Rally will include conferences, round tables, video-links with NATO Member States, exhibitions and other events. Starting on 11th of May 2006 the Rally shall go throughout the vast Russian territory, including Vladivostok, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Samara, Volgograd, Moscow, Murmansk, Pskov and Kaliningrad. The Rally is being organised by the NATO Information Office in Moscow, the embassies of NATO Member States in Russia and by their Russian partners. The organisers cooperate closely with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence and regional authorities of the Russian Federation.

This blog is intended both to cover the proceedings of NATO Russia Rally and to encourage experts and young people from Russia, NATO Member States and other countries to discuss numerous security problems that the world now faces and the opportunities for NATO-Russia cooperation.