Russia and the West are looking for ways to intensify cooperation in the security sphere. That is how Western periodicals commented on the decision of the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to participate in the NATO summit which will be held in Lisbon on November 19-20. According to Medvedev, “this will promote finding compromises and generally developing a dialog between the Russian Federation and the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization.” The consent of the Russian president to participate in the NATO summit can be regarded as Russia’s wish to develop a closer cooperation with the North-Atlantic Alliance. But a question arises: why is Russia, which has a higher level of relations with NATO than Ukraine, against the Euro-Atlantic integration of our country and in different ways hampered Ukraine’s joining the NATO Membership Action Plan at the Bucharest summit? Even as recently as this summer, after the change of government in our country, Russia’s representative at NATO expressed his discontent that after Viktor Yanukovych came to power the scope of Ukraine’s cooperation with NATO remained the same. Why does Moscow conduct such a policy regarding Kyiv and doesn’t allow Ukraine to integrate with NATO?
Yevhen KAMINSKY, the head of the department at the Institute for World Economy and International Relations:
“An answer suggests itself. The fact is that until now Ukraine has not determined where we should look for mechanisms, ways, forms and methods of increasing national security. Nobody persuaded civic society that refusing NATO membership is best for our national security. Nor did anyone persuade us that the neutral status corresponds to the national interests of Ukraine. To do this one should understand what national interests and national security are. Unfortunately, we see a situation when most citizens of Ukraine can only think — and it is also the fault of the government and the political system — about bread, about prices and how to survive. A majority of Ukraine’s population does not think in categories of national security and national interest, which are traditional for developed countries. Why? Because for years the shadow economy, total corruption and bribery, diluted the notion of national interest and national security within society. As a result of the politicians’ behavior people associate this notion with the interest of a bunch of rich people, so-called political leaders and political elites. In order to answer the question of whether we should join NATO, one should do something to make citizens out of the masses. So that people feel the expediency and necessity to be citizens and to be responsible. Without this feeling we will never make a decisive conclusion about whether we should, or not, be part of NATO. Regarding Russia, unlike Ukraine it does not take into account the population’s opinion. They have authorities and political leaders who act at their own discretion. At the same time, these leaders’ behavior imposes their will on neighboring countries or former Soviet republics. They impose this position in different ways, but most often using financial, economic and energy arguments. We have very few reasons to compare the position of Russia and Ukraine, because we are extremely different. The Ukrainian population can still, if it wants, act like citizens, influence politicians — it can change the situation, but I do not see a possibility for radical changes in Russia in the near future. Because Russian political authorities have sufficient financial resources to manipulate the situation, not only in their country, but also in adjacent countries like Ukraine or Belarus. Medvedev’s participation in the NATO summit most likely should be analyzed in the context of the preparation to the presidential elections in Russia. In my opinion, there are no reasons to say that in 2012 Vladimir Putin will automatically become president of the Russian Federation. Lately Medvedev repeatedly took stands which differed from the position of Prime Minister Putin, they have conflicts quite often, particularly in questions of principle. On the other hand, the position of Medvedev lies in showing the world that Russia is unjustly accused of imperial ambitions, that in fact Russia seeks cooperation even with NATO and allegedly wants to create a system of European security with more justice, without the hegemony of the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization. At the same time, it is propaganda meant for the whole world, in particular Ukraine, Ukrainians, Ukrainian journalists and intellectuals. Its purpose is to completely confuse us and finally prevent us from taking a final decision on what is best for us, Ukrainians — to be in NATO or outside NATO. In other words, everything is done to confuse and distract attention from the key question, that of national interest and national security of Ukraine.”
Semen NOVOPRUDSKY, deputy chief editor of the newspaper Vremia Novostey, Moscow:
“It seems to me that it stems from, so to say, different hemispheres of the brain of the Russian government. At present relations with NATO are developing because Russia simply understood that for economic reasons it is vital to have good relations with countries of the West, the US and leading NATO countries. There is a need to access technologies, a possibility to use Western experience in the modernization of the country. Even if it all remains just talk. I guess that in this case cooperation with NATO is not as much military-political as some disguise for the need of economic cooperation. The consent of Medvedev should be seen together with, say, Russia’s belated sanctions against Iran and its refusal to supply the complex C-300. Indeed, at first the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confidently stated that the UN sanctions allegedly were not extended to these supplies. Regarding the unwillingness of good Ukraine-NATO relations, this comes from the imperial hemisphere. In fact, it is clear that anyway Russia mentally did not acknowledge Ukraine as an independent state, with complete freedom of choice in its political orientation. That is why the Kremlin tries to keep Ukraine in the orbit of its geopolitical influence. These things, of course, contradict one another, they come from the lack of Russia’s distinct understanding of its place in the modern world: whether it will be a separate pole or simply a big regional state or an ordinary country busy with its internal problems and building constructive relations on a mutually advantageous basis. Russia did make any decision in this regard, and that is why contradictions in its foreign policy appear, and look egregious at first sight. Why does Russia need compromises with NATO? On the one hand, not to fail with Skolkovo, and also get a possibility to cooperate with the West and get money from it. Therefore the Kremlin should establish political cooperation with NATO. It is also important for Russia to show readiness to accept ideas of others after advancing the idea of a general treaty on European security. Russia became notorious for saying ‘no’ to all foreign initiatives on any issue for the last 10 years. If it says ‘yes’ at least once, it will cause some surprise and caution in the West. There are compromises Russia is ready to accept without forsaking its ambitions. The question is where the limit to these compromises will be and whether there will be concord within the Russian elite in this regard.”
