25 years ago, on May 27, 1997, at the summit in Paris, the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization" was signed.
The document was signed by Russian President Boris Yeltsin, NATO Secretary General Javier Solana and the leaders of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance.
The main point of the Russia-NATO agreement was the renunciation of any form of confrontation.
“Russia and NATO do not see each other as adversaries.
The common goal of Russia and NATO is to overcome the remnants of the previous confrontation and rivalry and to strengthen mutual trust and cooperation,” the agreement said.
It was emphasized that the parties intend to build fundamentally new relations and develop "on the basis of common interests, reciprocity and transparency, a strong, stable and long-term partnership."
The document also proclaimed "the renunciation of the use of force or the threat of force against each other or against any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any way."
NATO's refusal to expand to the east was not spelled out in the Founding Act, but the alliance gave guarantees to Moscow that it would not deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of the new members of the bloc.
Currently, the alliance does not comply with the terms of the Founding Act - NATO denounced it on February 25, 2022, the day after the start of the special operation of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine.
However, Moscow did not take a similar step.
At the same time, according to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, NATO has never respected the 1997 document in principle.
“From the very beginning, the West led the matter to a disdainful attitude towards this document, it was, in fact, initially a kind of fig leaf covering a completely different content of NATO policy in the eastern, in a broad sense, direction,” Ryabkov emphasized.
"Smoothed sharp corners"
The Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed against the backdrop of the warming between Moscow and the West that still persisted at that time.
For example, the document positively assessed the policy of reducing the number of arsenals and the number of armed forces, which was pursued by the countries of the alliance and the Russian Federation.
On this positive wave, on December 4, 1997, the first meeting of the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Colonel General Anatoly Kvashnin, with the leadership of the bloc took place in Brussels.
On March 18, 1998, Russia formally established a permanent mission to NATO.
Its office is located in Brussels, where the headquarters of the alliance is located.
Russian President Boris Yeltsin and NATO Secretary General Javier Solana
AFP
© LUKE FRAZZA
In a RT commentary, Sergey Ermakov, a leading expert at the RISS Research Coordination Center, noted that the content of the Founding Act was in the interests of both parties.
However, subsequent NATO policy crossed out the achievements enshrined in the document in the field of international security.
“In the mid-1990s, both in Russia and in the alliance, there were forces that promoted the idea of forming a system of peaceful, non-confrontational coexistence between the West and Russia.
But in the end, those who believed that Russia lost in the Cold War won the alliance, so there is no need to take into account its interests and build equal relations with it, ”said Yermakov.
Two years later, relations between Moscow and NATO deteriorated markedly.
In 1999, there was a largely hasty expansion of the alliance due to the admission of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, the former countries of the Warsaw Pact Organization, into its ranks.
In the same year, without a UN Security Council resolution, the bloc committed armed aggression against Yugoslavia.
On March 24, 1999, on the first day of the military operation in the Balkans, Yeltsin recalled Russia's chief military representative to NATO from Brussels.
Alexei Shakhtakhtinsky, a representative of the alliance's contact bureau in Moscow, and Manfred Diehl, a NATO information adviser, were expelled from Moscow two days later.
In addition, Russia refused to participate in the bloc's anniversary summit in Washington.
True, relations with the North Atlantic Alliance quickly began to recover.
As early as February 2000, the new NATO Secretary General George Robertson made a working visit to Russia.
Nevertheless, according to Yermakov, NATO aggression in Yugoslavia has changed the attitude of the political elite of the Russian Federation towards cooperation with NATO.
In addition, the military operation of the alliance was a violation of the provisions of the Founding Act, which proclaimed the refusal to use force against "any other state, its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any way."
“From the Russian point of view, the NATO aggression in Yugoslavia demonstrated the final victory of the supporters of the hegemony of the West, and to be more precise, the hegemony of the United States.
Washington and its allies have made it clear that, as before, they are ready to solve problems with the help of military force.
Naturally, conclusions were drawn in Russia on this matter, ”said Ermakov.
According to the expert, for Russia, the positive effect of the Founding Act was expressed in a kind of respite before the round of a new large-scale confrontation with the alliance, which began in 2014.
Consequences of NATO attacks on Yugoslavia
AFP
© ALEXANDER NEMENOV
“The Founding Act to a certain extent smoothed over sharp corners in relations with NATO.
Thanks to this, Russia received time for economic recovery and the construction of a new type of army, ”the analyst explained.
From missile defense to Ukraine
According to experts, relations between Moscow and NATO have experienced several crises in the 21st century.
Their main reason was the policy of the United States, which, using the infrastructure of NATO in Europe, increased military pressure on Russia.
After the events in Yugoslavia, actions aimed at revising the arms control system became a serious test of the Founding Act.
Experts call Washington's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002 and the launch of a program to create a global missile defense system the first steps along this path.
There were heated disputes between Moscow and Washington over American plans to deploy part of the facilities in Eastern Europe.
This project was informally called EuroPRO.
Washington claimed that elements of the missile defense system in Europe were allegedly not directed against the Russian Federation.
However, Moscow has repeatedly emphasized that the real goal of developing the American missile defense system is to reduce the potential of the strategic forces of the Russian Federation.
In addition, the ground-based Aegis Ashore missile defense systems that were deployed in Poland and Romania have offensive capabilities and are capable of using Tomahawk cruise missiles.
In 2018, in an interview with NBC journalist Megyn Kelly, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the United States had rejected all Russian proposals to resolve the situation around missile defense and refused to take into account Moscow's fears.
“We have always said that the development of the missile defense system poses a threat to us, we have always talked about this,” Putin stressed.
US missile defense system in Romania
AFP
© DANIEL MIHAILESCU
As a result, as the Russian leader noted, the actions of the Americans provoked an arms race.
In such a situation, the Russian Federation was forced to start creating destruction systems capable of overcoming US missile defense systems.
Also, relations between Russia and NATO seriously aggravated Washington's withdrawal from the INF Treaty (Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles).
The document was signed in December 1987.
Its implementation saved Europe from the threat of nuclear destruction by land-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 km.
However, in August 2019, the United States withdrew from the INF Treaty, having discovered for itself the already legal opportunity to create new types of ground weapons and deploy them on the territory of its European NATO allies.
Moscow considered the INF Treaty as a pillar of European security, but following the United States, it was forced to withdraw from it.
Nevertheless, Russia still adheres to a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of previously banned missiles.
NATO's policy towards Ukraine has also led to extremely negative consequences for Russia's international stability and security.
The influence of the alliance, and above all the United States, on Ukraine was greatly strengthened as a result of the 2014 coup d'état.
NATO practically froze relations with Moscow, and individual countries of the bloc began to provide military assistance to Ukraine.
Shortly before the start of the special operation, the members of the alliance (mainly the United States and Great Britain) significantly increased the supply of lethal weapons to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Large batches of Western weapons, including heavy ones, continue to arrive in Ukraine today.
“The Alliance has been consistently preparing Ukraine for the role of an anti-Russian military outpost and is actively arming it today.
The chance to find a compromise was in the winter of this year, when negotiations were held on security issues, but Russia's opinion was again ignored at them, ”Sergey Yermakov recalled.
In an interview with RT, associate professor at Moscow State University.
M.V.
Lomonosov, Doctor of Historical Sciences Alexei Fenenko said that NATO has never sought an equal dialogue with Moscow and has always posed an existential threat to Russia's security.
American instructor and soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine
Gettyimages.ru
© Sean Gallup
“The situation in Ukraine exposed the anti-Russian nature of the alliance, but it has always been like that.
NATO does not benefit from the existence of a strong sovereign Russia.
For our country, the Western bloc has always been a hostile entity.
There should be no illusions here,” says Fenenko.
According to the expert, the confrontation between Moscow and NATO is due to objective geopolitical factors.
Nevertheless, both sides are interested in the fact that the rivalry does not cross certain boundaries and exists within the framework of a “managed confrontation”.
“NATO, I think, is aware of the consequences of open military involvement in the same conflict in Ukraine.
Many are now talking about the need to stabilize relations with the alliance, but, in my opinion, the main guarantee of this can only be the further military and economic strengthening of Russia, ”summed up Fenenko.