President
Obama and Russian President Medvedev hold an
unscheduled private meeting after the Russia-NATO Summit
in Lisbon, Nov. 10.
Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, Germany
New Russia-NATO Era
Hinges on U.S. Senate Republicans
"If
the New Start Treaty to reduce strategic nuclear arsenals isn't backed by the
resurgent Republicans of the U.S. Senate, Moscow's laboriously-suppressed suspicion
will flare once more. … NATO and Russia have more than enough shared worries. Both
should still be capable of remembering that there's nothing like a common enemy
to bind people together."
When, at the end of the NATO-Russia
Council meeting in Lisbon, everybody cheered for the new "Treaty of Westphalia."
But at least one party kept its feet firmly on the ground: the Russian Bear. And
there is good reason for both. With their agreement to cooperate on missile
defense, NATO and Russia not only transcended the Ice Age, which had returned with
the war in Georgia. For the first time, the former enemies got together to defend
against new threats from third parties. In the context of a long-term
relationship during which both parties repeatedly threatened the other with
annihilation, this could indeed be called "historic."
[Editor's Note: The term "Treaty
of Westphalia" refers to a series of peace treaties signed between May and
October of 1648. These treaties ended the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) in the
Holy Roman Empire, and the Eighty Years' War (1568–1648) between Spain and the
Dutch Republic.]
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
But this new era consists mainly
of declarations of intent - and even these don't completely correspond. The
Russian president outlined several conditions for participation in the missile
shield, which weren't to everyone in NATO's liking [watch video below]. If
these aren't met, then the Kremlin will not only withdraw from the project, but
from this new era: In which case, Moscow will (again) improve its capacity for nuclear
deterrence.
UNITED BY A COMMON ENEMY
But adversity in the West also
threatens this newfound friendship. If the New Start Treaty to
reduce strategic nuclear arsenals isn't backed by the resurgent Republicans of
the U.S. Senate, Moscow's laboriously-suppressed suspicion will flare once more.
But given earlier debates about the relationship between offensive and
defensive nuclear strategy, there's something curious about this: without disarming
offensive systems, there will be no common development of missile defense. To
embrace this in fact constitutes a historic turning point: For the first time, NATO
seeks the capacity to "protect our people and territory from ballistic
missiles attack." In plain English, this means the allies no longer have a
high degree of confidence in deterrence - at least not for dealing with regimes
like Iran.
It is against this backdrop
that NATO's decision on Afghanistan must be evaluated. If the country is
plunged into chaos after a retreat by the West, it may well take its nuclear-armed
neighbor Pakistan down with it. NATO and Russia have more than enough shared
worries. Both should still be capable of remembering that there's nothing like
a common enemy to bind people together.
*Berthold Kohler is one of
five publishers of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
