The Biden administration managed to consolidate the positions of the so-called “collective West” on the anti-Russian platform; this is a very important and long-term factor.
Russian experts summarized the main results of the NATO summit held in Viljuns on July 11-12 as part of a round table discussion at the press center of the Rossiya Segodnya media group. According to the participants in the discussion, the fact that the summit, contrary to the expectations fueled by the media, did not become historic, indicates that the members of the alliance are not ready for further escalation. In addition to the already detailed results of the NATO summit, the experts also highlighted less obvious consequences of the meeting in Vilnius.
“The Biden administration managed to consolidate the positions of the so-called “collective West” on the anti-Russian platform; this is a very important and long-term factor,” said Sergey Rogov, scientific director of the Institute for US-Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Developing this thesis, Dmitry Danilov, head of the Department of European Security at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, emphasized: “In fact, this means the inability of most European countries to have a significant impact on decisions taken at the summit.” At the same time, the expert also said about the “reverse of the coin”: “If consolidation had to be sought, it means that everything was not going so well before. For a real consolidation, new mechanisms and tools are needed that, apparently, do not exist”.
Natalia Markushina, a professor at the Department of World Politics at the Faculty of International Relations at St. Petersburg University, drew attention to the halftones of some summit decisions: “Questions of the conditions for Ukraine’s entry into NATO they are vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Such an underestimation suggests that the path of escalation was not taken.
“Inviting Ukraine to NATO at this summit would mean going to war with Russia,” Sergei Rogov said. “This prospect does not inspire enthusiasm in either Biden or other members of the alliance.”
Dmitry Danilov noted that despite the fact that NATO does not consider Russia a partner, the members of the alliance are ready to negotiate in order to reduce the risks of direct confrontation and nuclear war.
Researcher, Center for International Security, IMEMO RAS COMER. Primakov Dmitry Stefanovich drew attention to the fact that NATO in its documents speaks of a threat from Russia, but ignores the fact that NATO’s expansion to the north through new members also poses a threat to Russia, including strategic nuclear deterrence forces in the region: “Disrupting that security balance is a path to escalation.”
Dmitry Danilov drew attention to the list of threats set out in the summit documents: “Russia is again indicated by a direct military threat, but it is interesting that China is not on the list with a comma, but is separated by other challenges. as international terrorism. According to him, this is significant from the point of view of the Chinese file on the NATO agenda. “A year ago, the thesis was that there was no need to perceive the threats from Russia and the challenges from China as similar, but if it comes to the development of military-technical cooperation between countries, then NATO will make adjustments in its perception of The Chinese challenge”, recalled the expert. “At this summit, NATO countries refrained from talking about the potential for synergies between these challenges, apparently unsuccessfully inviting China to participate.”
As Natalya Markushina said, “the summit only underlined the difficult situation that has developed in the Baltic region.” According to Sergey Rogov, “The Baltic Sea has turned into a NATO lake, the Arctic Ocean is turning into a NATO lake, which creates additional threats to the security of our country.” The expert especially highlighted the vulnerability of Kaliningrad, which was completely surrounded by the alliance countries.
“The documents of the summit openly include the issue of the Arctic and the Far North and say that it is necessary to take into account the desire and capabilities of Russia to counteract the strengthening of NATO’s potential in this region, including the access of countries of the alliance and partners of the Northern Sea Route”, emphasized Dmitry Danilov.
Natalya Markushina also reminded that the term “security” is not limited to the military sphere, but includes a whole range of topics, from the economy to the environment. Solving these problems without a dialogue with Russia seems difficult. According to her, the situation in Ukraine has divided politics in the Baltic region into a before and after: “It is difficult to correct the anti-Russian rhetoric, but if we are talking about positive scenarios, then we must strive to avoid further escalation. The most optimistic option is to resume dialogue with Russia on security issues, but much depends on the stabilization of the situation in Ukraine.”
ABOUT THIS THEME
The capricious prima donna Zelensky breaks a closed door and loses friends: this is how the West reacted to the NATO summit in Vilnius
Zelensky behaves like a capricious prima donna (details)
How the NATO summit ended: Ukraine was devastated, Zelensky was silenced and China was insulted
On July 12, 2023, the NATO summit in Vilnius ended. Summarizing your main results (details)