Russian reversal

It didn't come as a big surprise. The relationship between NATO and Russia has been strained for quite some time now.

The main reason for the disgruntlement is Washington's push for the transatlantic alliance's missile defense system. Its partial operational readiness is supposed to be showcased to the world at the NATO summit in May. But since a compromise on that matter is not in sight to date, Russia's newly elected president had little interest to grin and bear it.

Putin considers it beneath him to be the summit's decorative figure whereas Barack Obama can present himself to his hometown Chicago as head of the western defense alliance.

Controversial point

But the setting was not primarily the determining factor. There are still irreconcilable differences on the matter itself. While western countries argue the danger of politically unpredictable states such as Iran justifies positioning new missiles on NATO's eastern borders, Moscow considers this as an affront. Moscow regards the missile defense system as a threat to its own security. This is why Russia announced it would deploy its own medium-range missiles in its western enclave Kaliningrad. It's based on the simple realization that the most effective answer to a missile defense system is to strengthen your own arsenal of offensive missiles.

Armament plans

In the next years Russia wants to massively invest in the production of its own missile systems in an attempt to maintain the arms balance with the US. The missile defense system poisons the relationship between NATO and Russia almost as much as the eastern enlargement at the time. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's assurances that the missile defense system is not targeting Russia but countering threats from the Middle East go unheard in Russia. Moscow wants legal safeguards, but NATO insists that political promises regarding missile defense are enough.

Joint strategic interests

The canceled NATO-Russia summit comes as the last straw in a dispute that seems to misperceive the economic and political state of affairs between the two parties. Apart from saving Russia and NATO money, a mutual missile defense system would also represent an important increase in security for both sides. Iran is currently working fast to develop its own nuclear weapons; in Afghanistan, the impending withdrawal of ISAF troops will create a security vacuum in an already destabilized region.
These risks concern Russia just as much as they do the West. Without the ability to transport troops over Russian territory, NATO won't be able to make the contribution to Afghan stability that it wants - nor will it be able to withdraw its troops. Mutual efforts to train Afghan forces to coordinate the fight against drugs are already underway.

Old enemy-friend thinking

The mutual strategic interests shared by NATO and Russia thus make the dispute over missile defense appear ever more paradoxical than it already is.

Germany has recently taken steps to mediate in the conflict and offer comprehensive suggestions for the exchange of military data and the establishment of more transparency and verification measures.

This doesn't have to be in vain. There is still enough time to create the missile defense shield, and a system of sustainable security in Europe means that Russia - and also the Caucasus and Central Asian states - be included in the Euro-Atlantic security partnership.

The dispute over missile defense has cost NATO and Russia valuable time in their bid to build up this partnership. Twenty years after the end of the Cold War we can still observe in this quarrel the vestiges of the "enemy-friend" thought processes that dominated back then: This is doing very little for the long-term security of Europe.

Author: Daniel Scheschkewitz / sst, glb
Editor: Rob Mudge