just in in-tray, per stratfor
Russia, Germany: Discussing a New Alliance
Stratfor Today » October 2, 2008 | 2211 GMT
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (L) and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Oct. 2 in St. Petersburg, RussiaSummary
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met in St. Petersburg on Oct. 2. Among the topics of discussion was the possibility of a new collective security agreement between Europe and Russia, dubbed Helsinki II. Russia’s proposal is meant to undermine the U.S.-dominated NATO alliance — a constellation of countries whose effectiveness is already being questioned.
Analysis
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and German Chancellor Angela Merkel met Oct. 2 in St. Petersburg to discuss a multitude of issues ranging from the fallout from the Georgia-Russia war to energy supplies and the global financial situation. One topic of discussion was even more intense: a new collective security agreement between Europe and Russia, dubbed Helsinki II. Moscow is pushing hard for discussions about an agreement between Russia and Europe outside of NATO, in order to undermine the U.S.-dominated alliance, but the push comes as many within the United States are considering the worth of Washington’s alliances around the world.
Russia has been especially vocal about its initiative of a new legally binding treaty on collective security in Europe, which Medvedev put forward in Berlin in June. At the time, most of Europe seemed to ignore Russia’s move to balance its security concerns in Europe with those of the United States, which is installing ballistic missile defense interceptors and a related radar in Central Europe. However, all of Europe and the United States have taken a step back to re-evaluate their dismissal of Russia since it proved its prowess by invading Georgia in August.
The Russians do not belong to any overarching security architecture like NATO, and previous Russian attempts at such organizations — such as the Warsaw Pact — have failed to approach anything resembling integration on weapons systems or communications. While there are technical arrangements, as with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or the Collective Security Treaty Organization, these do not rival NATO.
The so-called Helsinki II pact would echo the Helsinki agreement in 1975 that entailed closer relations between Europe and the Soviet Union. The agreement emerged at a time when the United States appeared weak after being tied down in Vietnam, and European politicians were experimenting with “ostpolitik,” a tactic of seeking rapport with the Soviets.
Related Special Topic Page
The Russian Resurgence
The Russian security proposal is a calculated overture to a Europe that could not be in greater disarray on security and defense matters. European security and defense policy — which French President Nicolas Sarkozy has attempted to revitalize — has dragged on for decades. With Washington and its allies entangled in Iraq (for the United States) and Afghanistan (for the bulk of NATO’s truly expeditionary combat power), Russia has an opportunity to halt NATO enlargement and renegotiate the alliance structure in its Western periphery.
To this end, Moscow is targeting Germany, the one player that has both the geopolitical impetus to bargain with the Kremlin (it is dependent on Russian energy) and the means within NATO to nix membership invitations to countries that Russia does not want to see join, such as Ukraine and Georgia. Moscow’s tactic is based in history: In great part, it was West Germany’s decision to negotiate with the Soviet Union that gave the original Helsinki accord its symbolic power, and now the opportunity has arisen again for Germany to cut a deal.
But it is not just Russia and Europe that are rethinking their alliances; the issue has popped up among the U.S. presidential candidates as well. And it is not just the security alliance of NATO that is being questioned anymore; the larger issue of the effectiveness of the United Nations is also on the table.
During the first presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, McCain raised one of his boldest foreign policy ideas — one that has received little attention so far. Speaking about Iran, McCain said, “What I have proposed for a long time, and I’ve had conversations with foreign leaders about forming a league of democracies, let’s be clear and let’s have some straight talk. The Russians are preventing significant action in the United Nations Security Council.” McCain’s comments echoed previous arguments along the same lines.
Yet the proposal to found a “League of Democracies” is striking and reflects a viewpoint that is gaining support in various foreign policy circles — not necessarily just among U.S. allies. It is a view that rejects multilateralism for the sake of multilateralism and instead imagines forging tighter bonds within an elite set of partners in order to minimize the strategic flaws inherent in grand alliances.
The obvious starting point for this line of thought is the perceived inadequacy of the United Nations. This inadequacy lies not merely in the amount of bureaucracy and politicking necessary to make resolutions at the United Nations, and the problems with enforcing these resolutions, but in the United Nations’ almost complete lack of military capability, beyond small contingents for monitoring and peacekeeping.
NATO faces a different set of problems. It is the most fully integrated international military alliance in history, yet it still suffers from the faults inherent in alliance warfare. Its constituent members often bicker over sharing expenses and hesitate to pony up their share of the costs of military upkeep.
But despite occasional lack of enthusiasm and budget contributions, NATO commands a decent level of cooperation from its members, most of which have relatively capable militaries. The greater problem is that these militaries do not have the capability to engage on more than one front; most of that capability has been taken up by operations in Afghanistan, where NATO forces are scrounging for more materiel, from armor to helicopters. The mission there has frozen NATO members, much as Iraq and Afghanistan have constrained the United States.
NATO leaders have long recognized NATO’s shortcomings and the need for structural reform, but the nature of alliances, with diverse members’ diverse interests, requires that such reforms go through the appropriate political channels, opening up the possibility for innumerable hang-ups and delays. While reform is possible, it will take time, and thus offers little consolation for Western leaders looking to counter Russia’s resurgence now.
|
