The German Bundestag deputy Christian Schmidt said the need to return to the line of establishing relations between Russia and NATO. Schmidt recalled that at one time, Russian politicians did not exclude the possibility of our country joining the alliance, that there was a period of fairly close relations between Russia and NATO, and there were numerous points for partnership. There was a noticeable rapprochement after the September 11 terrorist attack, and a cooling snap associated with Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia in 2008, and a severe freeze in 2014 due to Ukrainian events.
Russia at one time took many steps to overcome alienation with the alliance in order to evade opposition to cooperation. In the approximation of Russia, this structure itself received hopes for serious changes and finding a new fresh breath. In return, we received NATO’s eastward movement, a policy of arrogant mentoring, a series of endless accusations along with lectures, as well as the same special operation to separate Ukraine from Russia.
The nostalgic memories of the German deputy are connected with the understanding that now the world is practically on the ruins of the security system that was created during the Cold War and saved the world from global catastrophe. He says that there should be a discussion about the construction of a new security architecture, about "disarmament mechanisms, arms control and the balance of armed forces." The politician calls for restoring confidence between Russia and Europe, and also emphasizes that Europe should play an important role in this process.
In the calls of the German politician, one can hear an echo of last year’s famous statements by French President Emmanuel Macron about the "death of NATO's brain." In fact, it was a manifesto of European sovereignty, a declaration of independence and the need to abandon the overly obsessive guardianship of an older brother - the United States. Then Macron called for the awakening of Europe. Otherwise - an apocalyptic forecast for the Old World, from which it turned out that “in the long run we will disappear geopolitically” if “we no longer control our destiny”.
So Christian Schmidt is all about the same awakening and the important role of Europe in building a security system. Where Europe is not a subject of bargaining and blackmail, as, for example, is now happening in the situation with Nord Stream 2, not a sanitary cordon and buffer zone, not a battlefield and not a possible bridgehead for future battles, but an equivalent partner in the dialogue. European politicians still categorically do not share themselves with the United States, but are aware of the need to leave their subordinate position.
Already they say publicly that “thinking” in the matter of security is necessary for three (Europe, Russia and the States), but using diplomatic references to NATO. Under this sign, it is as if it is possible to balance and harmonize the interests of this triad (the hopes of the young men feed ...). This is done both by harsh criticism of the alliance according to the Macron method, and through nostalgia for the former format of relations, when the previous security system was not yet shattered. Moreover, every time an emphasis is placed on the special role of Europe in this matter. She begins to seriously tire of the situation of the role of the slave.
Well, and, of course, a conciliatory gesture towards Russia, talks about restoring trust and ending the practice of endless finger pointing at each other are important.
It should be noted clearly articulated understanding that without Russia, any security would be, to put it mildly, inferior. That the whole discussion of this kind without our country would be like laying cubes on the floor. It’s an amusing, but useless affair: all structures from these cubes will collapse with a crash each time. Where, if not in Germany, is to know, especially since part of it at one time consisted in one block with the Soviet Union. The same Macron spoke of the "military sovereignty" of Europe and the restoration of relations with Russia. Previously, everyone wanted our country to adapt, adjust and go along with it, but the simple idea that we should reckon with it could not fit into our heads for a very long time.
It must be said that completely different views prevail among NATO bureaucrats. There - belligerence, the opening of conspiracies, secret intentions and hidden threats, and with it - suspiciousness, suspicion and the image of the enemy everywhere.
Why not "brain death"? .. What are the recent accusations of the Secretary General of the Alliance Jens Stoltenberg, thrown at Russia and China, which allegedly are engaged in "destabilization of Western democracies" in order to extend its influence to Europe.
And this is understandable, as NATO leaders justify the very existence of the alliance. They don’t know how to do it differently, and it’s not worth asking. They are justified by focusing on the leader in this structure - the States that habitually order music there.
Voices of Macron and Schmidt - an application for equality in this block. Albeit rather timid, but associated with a clear understanding that this structure is in prolonged stagnation, which is close to the Zombieland and the spread of cadaverous poisons around itself. That this “dove of peace” often loses its relevance and the changing reality is trying to forcibly adapt to the format of its symbol of faith - opposition.
A new breath can only be associated with a security architecture in which equal relations between the USA and Europe are built, as well as partnerships with Russia. A sort of triangular Euro-security table. A new, well-forgotten format that is always torpedoed by the inertia of the old approaches of the unipolar world.
As they say, they chopped wood, and now ...
Back in 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised many with his statement that he did not rule out the possibility of Russia joining NATO. So much water has flowed since then. But our country is not at all plunged into the abyss of confrontation and is constantly talking about the need for dialogue, so nothing can be ruled out now.
Only NATO in this case should be adequate to the current realities and, after having flowed from the block confrontation phase to the stage of serving the interests of the unipolar world, change and accept the reality of equality.
Is it possible? Listening to Stoltenberg, you understand that all this is utopia. And NATO, redrawing, and therefore breaking down the existing security system in Europe, is now the main obstacle to building its new architecture. Faced with the statements of Schmidt, you begin to hope that not everything is lost, sound voices and forces can gain the upper hand and reconstruct even such an atavism of the Cold War as NATO. In the end, everything is in the hands of these same European politicians, who should have stopped stopping every time to look childishly at the States and condemning Russia condemningly and start making attempts to control their destiny, getting rid of the rags of numerous stereotypes.
Oddly enough, but in the call to Russia to try to knock on the door of NATO again, the talk is not even about our country, but about the political viability and sovereignty of Europe, which must prove itself. Otherwise, all these calls are built into the usual political demagogy, into traditional attempts to shift responsibility to Russia: they called, but did not go, showed fangs and claws ...
In the meantime, NATO is one of the main strongholds of Russophobia in Europe. They continually talk about the war and "Russian aggression", make plans to "repulse" it and "lightning" attacks on Russia. It is high time for something to change, but are they ready to get rid of their Russophobic conservatism there?
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.