Questa pagina è disponibile solo in inglese.

NATO e Russia: difficili partners

NATO and Russia don't see each other as enemies. They collaborate in several areas. So why the bad mood music between the two?

Full video transcript

NATO and Russia: uneasy partners?

In 1997, NATO and Russia

signed a founding act,

which clearly stated that neither side

saw the other as an adversary.

So why the friction between

the two over fifteen years later?

From the perspective of people

who currently hold power in Moscow,

they are convinced

that the greatest threat to them

is the spread

of Western norms and values

and a liberal democratic system

into what they see

as their own domain,

which they still define

as the former Soviet-Union.

Russian government people

and military establishment

are deeply convicted

that in the late eighties

and the beginning of the nineties,

they were solemn guarantees

made by the US

and the major NATO countries,

not to expand NATO further east.

Russians feel

that NATO is cheating on them.

But what is the crux of the problem

for NATO-Russia relations?

And what can recent events

in the Ukraine tell us about them?

What bothers

them really is NATO enlargement.

And a large part

of what bothers them about that,

is that if you have NATO,

more NATO in countries like Ukraine,

you have with it

more of a NATO model

about how your defences

and security are organised,

how the state works with this,

and they don’t want that.

That’s what they are really afraid of.

As long as we stay in our own space,

I don't think they really

see us posing a threat to them.

But Russia is

not rejecting collaboration.

Since 2002 there’s been

the NATO-Russia Council,

which specifically deals

in collaboration on threats,

which both sides face.

We have to think about

how to protect ourselves

against new threats and challenges.

And this is exactly one of the key

parts of our security agenda.

I can tell you that I think

that the security agenda,

which is under consideration

of the Council,

has two elements: first of all,

this is our screening ability

to look at security challenges

on emerging threats.

And to try to understand what could

be done jointly in dealing with that.

Russia is a multinational state,

which is threatened by extremism,

it’s threatened

by the growing sophistication

of globally organised

terrorist movements,

and the work that NATO and Russia

can do here is obviously important.

And the list of areas where

cooperation exists is already long.

Just recently NATO and Russia

unveiled the STANDEX project,

which aims

to prevent terrorist opportunities

to use explosives against commuters

in mass transit systems.

They are also cooperating quite well

with both the Ocean Shield Operation

conducted by NATO,

but also the Atalanta Operation

by the European Union.

On Afghanistan, we have

a solid cooperation in many areas

and in terms of transit

Russia is playing a crucial role

for the international community,

for the ISAF countries,

but we do also

a lot of things in training,

both anti-drug officers

for Afghanistan,

Pakistan, Central Asia,

and we are also working

on very specific projects

designed to improve

security on transport

and in other areas where we are very

vulnerable to individual terrorists

and the STANDEX project is very

promising and we are working on it.

So, to make a long story short:

looking at this list

of common threats and challenges

our cooperation

is developing quite well.

And apart from results these projects

are important in fostering trust.

The STANDEX issue,

the Cooperative Airspace Initiative,

they work quite well

because in these issues there are

two elements, which are important.

First is that there is a balance

of benefits on both sides.

Secondly, they are

not kind of politicized issues.

These are more technical issues,

which are very helpful in concrete

ways to address real challenges.

Trust between the two sides

remains the key issue

and it could be argued

that a lack of it at present

is what appears to be holding back

the relationship from achieving more.

Of all of NATO’s partner relations,

none holds greater potential

than that between NATO and Russia.

But today that potential

is not being fully met.

The basic problem behind,

I think, is very simple,

which is the lack of trust,

being the lack of trust

on both sides.

NATO and Russia: uneasy partners?

In 1997, NATO and Russia

signed a founding act,

which clearly stated that neither side

saw the other as an adversary.

So why the friction between

the two over fifteen years later?

From the perspective of people

who currently hold power in Moscow,

they are convinced

that the greatest threat to them

is the spread

of Western norms and values

and a liberal democratic system

into what they see

as their own domain,

which they still define

as the former Soviet-Union.

Russian government people

and military establishment

are deeply convicted

that in the late eighties

and the beginning of the nineties,

they were solemn guarantees

made by the US

and the major NATO countries,

not to expand NATO further east.

Russians feel

that NATO is cheating on them.

But what is the crux of the problem

for NATO-Russia relations?

And what can recent events

in the Ukraine tell us about them?

What bothers

them really is NATO enlargement.

And a large part

of what bothers them about that,

is that if you have NATO,

more NATO in countries like Ukraine,

you have with it

more of a NATO model

about how your defences

and security are organised,

how the state works with this,

and they don’t want that.

That’s what they are really afraid of.

As long as we stay in our own space,

I don't think they really

see us posing a threat to them.

But Russia is

not rejecting collaboration.

Since 2002 there’s been

the NATO-Russia Council,

which specifically deals

in collaboration on threats,

which both sides face.

We have to think about

how to protect ourselves

against new threats and challenges.

And this is exactly one of the key

parts of our security agenda.

I can tell you that I think

that the security agenda,

which is under consideration

of the Council,

has two elements: first of all,

this is our screening ability

to look at security challenges

on emerging threats.

And to try to understand what could

be done jointly in dealing with that.

Russia is a multinational state,

which is threatened by extremism,

it’s threatened

by the growing sophistication

of globally organised

terrorist movements,

and the work that NATO and Russia

can do here is obviously important.

And the list of areas where

cooperation exists is already long.

Just recently NATO and Russia

unveiled the STANDEX project,

which aims

to prevent terrorist opportunities

to use explosives against commuters

in mass transit systems.

They are also cooperating quite well

with both the Ocean Shield Operation

conducted by NATO,

but also the Atalanta Operation

by the European Union.

On Afghanistan, we have

a solid cooperation in many areas

and in terms of transit

Russia is playing a crucial role

for the international community,

for the ISAF countries,

but we do also

a lot of things in training,

both anti-drug officers

for Afghanistan,

Pakistan, Central Asia,

and we are also working

on very specific projects

designed to improve

security on transport

and in other areas where we are very

vulnerable to individual terrorists

and the STANDEX project is very

promising and we are working on it.

So, to make a long story short:

looking at this list

of common threats and challenges

our cooperation

is developing quite well.

And apart from results these projects

are important in fostering trust.

The STANDEX issue,

the Cooperative Airspace Initiative,

they work quite well

because in these issues there are

two elements, which are important.

First is that there is a balance

of benefits on both sides.

Secondly, they are

not kind of politicized issues.

These are more technical issues,

which are very helpful in concrete

ways to address real challenges.

Trust between the two sides

remains the key issue

and it could be argued

that a lack of it at present

is what appears to be holding back

the relationship from achieving more.

Of all of NATO’s partner relations,

none holds greater potential

than that between NATO and Russia.

But today that potential

is not being fully met.

The basic problem behind,

I think, is very simple,

which is the lack of trust,

being the lack of trust

on both sides.

Related videos
|
  • USA e UE: più protezione che difesa?
  • Quali saranno le maggiori minacce nei prossimi dieci anni?
  • NATO e Industria: stessi obiettivi, linguaggi diversi?
  • Calcio e mutamenti nella difesa
  • L'elicottero. La sua importanza
  • La difesa moderna: meglio intelligente che attraente?
  • I Balcani occidentali faranno squadra?
  • Ahmed Rashid: saranno le elezioni, non i soldati
  • NATO-Russia: ricominciamo da zero?
  • Franco Frattini:
  • Europe e Stati Uniti: quanto è solido questo legame?
  • Hacker cercasi
  • La guerra cibernetica esiste?
  • Gli attacchi cibernetici, la NATO e gli Angry Birds
  • Attacchi cibernetici: come ci possono colpire?
  • L’Artico che muta: quanto dovrebbe esservi coinvolta la NATO?
  • Cosa rende imnportanti i Partner? Quattro ministri degli esteri lo spiegano
  • Donne nella sicurezza: una presenza che cresce?
  • Ashton e Paloméros: perché è necessario che UE e NATO siano partner
  • Irlanda: rapporti con la NATO e neutralità
  • Donne nel campo della sicurezza: storie individuali
  • Donne in prima linea
  • La rivoluzione libica del 2011… in 2 minuti
  • Petrolio: un grosso problema
  • Acqua o guerra?
  • Energia e ambiente: ciò che è positivo, ciò che è negativo e ciò che preoccupa
  • Le forze della natura e le forze armate
  • Terrorismo endogeno: come lo considera la UE
  • Terrorismo endogeno: come può combatterlo la NATO?
  • Da Cronkite alla Corea: le lezioni apprese
  • Il signor TransAtlantico
  • Realizzare il concetto
  • Social media e NATO: una questione complicata
  • Missione impossibile?
  • Il vertice NATO del 2012: cosa significa per Chicago
  • Un’istantanea dell’Afghanistan: come lo vedono gli esperti
  • Grecia: cosa significano 60 anni nella NATO
  • Turchia: intervista con il Ministro della difesa Yilmaz
  • Turchia: cosa significano 60 anni nella NATO
  • Grecia e NATO: il punto di vista della nuova generazione
  • Mladic, la giustizia e il 2011: il punto di vista della Serbia
  • Mladic, Srebrenica e la giustizia
  • Un punto di vista della regione
  • Mladic, la giustizia e il 2011: il punto di vista della Croazia
  • Come vanno le cose in Afghanistan? Intervista con Ahmed Rashid
  • Duplice prospettiva: un punto di vista afgano-americano
  • Armi leggere: le effettive armi di distruzione di massa?
  • La NATO e i suoi partner: cambiano i rapporti?
  • NATO e Svezia: vecchi partner, nuove prospettive?
  • La sicurezza sta nei numeri? La NATO e i suoi partner
  • Partenariati stabili: è ora la corruzione il principale campo di battaglia in Afghanistan?
  • I social media: possono anche nuocere alla democrazia?
  • Cambiamenti politici: come i social media possono influirvi o meno
  • La primavera araba: la prima rivoluzione di Facebook?
  • Sfamare il pianeta
  • Morire di fame
  • Ottimismo o realismo?
  • L’economia mondiale nel 2011: migliora o peggiora?
  • Terre rare: il nuovo petrolio del 2011?
  • Il Concetto Strategico della NATO: una riuscita operazione di equilibrismo?
  • Lisbona: ideale luogo di nascita per il nuovo Concetto Strategico della NATO?
  • Uniti per affrontare le questioni globali
  • Obama, elezioni e politica estera: tutta qui la responsabilità?
  • Il Tea Party: in casa, soli?
  • “Le donne sono diventate oggi dei soldati in prima linea, senza armi”
  • UNSCR 1325: un decimo anniversario felice?
  • La sicurezza: una carriera ancora al maschile?
  • Che importanza hanno le donne nel nuovo Concetto Strategico della NATO?
  • Perché lo Yemen dovrebbe preoccuparci?
  • Yemen: 10 ragioni per preoccuparsi
  • Difesa e attacco: come i soldati vedono il calcio
  • Il calcio, divide o unisce?
  • Che effetto avranno i cambiamenti in campo nucleare sulla NATO?
  • Il Trattato di non proliferazione: il più importante trattato al mondo?
  • La bomba sporca: bassi costi, alti rischi
  • La partita a scacchi in campo nucleare: la prossima mossa dell’Iran?
  • L’AIEA: l’agenzia mondiale più importante?
  • Operazione Active Endeavour: un punto di vista privilegiato
  • 2010: anno zero per lo zero nucleare?
  • Il sogno nucleare di Obama: Yes, he can?
  • Il traffico marittimo e la pirateria: un punto di vista qualificato
  • La sicurezza marittima cambia aspetto
  • La sicurezza marittima cambia aspetto
  • La Cina e l’Occidente: un conflitto informatico?
  • Ivo Daalder, Ambasciatore USA presso la NATO
  • Madeleine K. Albright, Presidente del Gruppo di esperti sul Concetto Strategico della NATO
  • Il tempismo è tutto?
  • Ammiraglio James G. Stavridis, Comandante supremo delle forze alleate in Europa
  • Generale Klaus Naumann, ex Presidente del Comitato militare della NATO
  • La grande questione che il Concetto Strategico deve affrontare è ...
  • Sede della NATO: tempo di cambiamenti?
  • Jeroen Van der Veer, Vice Presidente del Gruppo di esperti sul Concetto Strategico della NATO
  • Uno scontro di opinioni
  • Tempi nuovi, minacce nuove, risposte nuove
  • Che significato ha per i militari?
  • L’opinione pubblica deve poter comprendere: la semplicità è fondamentale (parte 1)
  • L’opinione pubblica deve poter comprendere: la semplicità è fondamentale (parte 2)
  • Storia: quali fattori hanno determinato il Concetto Strategico?
  • Crimine organizzato e gruppi terroristici: camerati o camaleonti?
  • Pirateria, porti e stati in disfacimento: questa la prima linea del crimine organizzato?
  • Perché la crisi finanziaria coinvolge la sicurezza: una guida in tre minuti
  • Dalla finanza alla difesa
  • La crisi finanziaria: rivolgersi agli esperti
  • La governatrice afgana, Habiba Sarabi: “La nuova legislazione proposta sui diritti delle donne costituirà un passo indietro”
  • Il governatore Amin della provincia di Farahi: “La recessione può avvantaggiare i talebani”
  • Sotto il ghiaccio del mondo…
  • Intervista a Søren Gade, Ministro della difesa danese
  • Intervista a Jonas Gahr Støre, Ministro degli esteri norvegese
  • Video intervista con Ahmed Rashid
  • Talebani, televisione, telefoni - e terrore
  • Partenariato o adesione per la Finlandia?
  • Jamie Shea: Kosovo, ieri e oggi
  • Intervista: Paddy Ashdown
  • Bosnia: un nuovo modello di esercito?
  • La riforma della polizia in Bosnia: missione incompleta o missione impossibile?
  • Karadzic: da Sarajevo a L'Aia
  • Video intervista
  • Video dibattito. I nuovi mezzi di comunicazione: un aiuto o un ostacolo nelle situazioni di conflitto?