Therefore it is not surprising that talk of Russian membership in NATO is on the increase both in the West and in Russia. Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the international relations committee in the Russian Duma, recently said that a serious NATO membership proposal could be embraced by Moscow.
Russian NATO membership is not a new idea. In the dying days of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin stunned NATO by sending a letter declaring, “Today we are raising the question of Russia’s membership in NATO.” Yeltsin called it a long-term political aim. At the time NATO ministers were too taken aback to give a constructive response. In the years that followed Yeltsin continued to raise the topic and the West kept fudging over its reply. And in the first days of Vladimir Putin’s presidency, during his first foreign interview, he left many flabbergasted when he said, “We believe we can talk about more profound integration with NATO, but only if Russia is regarded as an equal partner.” Asked if Russia could join NATO, Putin replied, “I do not see why not.” He also gave a warning: Any attempt by NATO to exclude Russia from the debate over NATO’s eastward enlargement will provoke opposition. And we have clearly seen this in the years that followed.
Russia was not happy about the enlargement to the countries of the former Warsaw Pact and was particularly aggrieved by the entry of the Baltic states. Moscow was upset by NATO’s action in the Balkans -- Bosnia and Kosovo in particular. But it was the idea of Georgian and Ukrainian membership as well as George Bush’s plan to establish a Missile Defense System (MDS) right on Russia’s doorstep that was the snapping point, and US-Russia relations hit an all-time low with Russian tanks rolling into Georgian territory. US President Barack Obama has gone some way to restore relations with his “reset” -- MDS plans have been ditched, Ukraine has now dropped the membership goal, and while Georgia still has NATO on its mind, the chances of Georgia making it into the club any time soon would seem slim. But still the issue of European security remains unresolved.
Earlier this year a number of political and military leaders called on NATO to invite Russia to join the alliance. It is not that surprising, simply because without constructive Russian involvement it will prove impossible to have an adequate security system in Europe and more particularly in the Eurasia area, where maintaining stability is proving increasingly difficult. Furthermore, NATO has lost its goal. Many of the US’s NATO allies are no longer ready to engage in dangerous combat missions simply to further America’s strategic interests. The US has revised its list of priorities to favor the Middle East, where many EU states feel they have limited interest with their populations having no appetite for doing battle. It seems the most successful military-political alliance in history has lots its way and has been unable to transform itself into a “global” organization.
A European security structure that excludes Russia makes no sense. For its part, Russia has created a number of its own security initiatives involving the CIS states, and while not comparable to NATO, Russia (quite rightly) will never give up on what it considers to be its natural right to have a security role in the region that that it views as its zone of influence. Russia still has a strong military presence in the region. Within Europe alone Russia has a military presence in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova (troops in Transnistria), Armenia and in the occupied territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. Only in Azerbaijan do they have no real presence (only a radar station at Gabala).
Having Russia on board means that NATO would not have to depart from its enlargement doctrine and would be able to maintain its role as the only security structure in Europe.
Furthermore it would put an end to Moscow’s complaints that NATO frequently does not take its interests into account. But there are many obstacles: Many new NATO members cannot contemplate an organization with their former “masters” on board. Furthermore, Russia has always seen itself as an independent power that does not join clubs where decisions are taken by unanimity and while all NATO members are formally equal, the US is the undisputed hegemonic force. Russia is hardly likely to enter an organization where the deciding vote belongs to the US. Therefore NATO would have to evolve away from the current set up to something different and perhaps “fairer.” The question is whether the US would ever agree to this. And lastly Russia would have to meet the criteria to join -- as do all other candidates -- meaning undertaking several democratic reforms, including guarantees for the rights of the opposition, freedom of media and political competition. Not an easy task.
Having Russia on the inside, cooperating constructively towards common goals, would seem far more logical than keeping Russian on the outside -- remaining unpredictable, feeling excluded and looking for “alternatives.” However, Russia would only do this if they see tangible benefits from membership.
