Image Credits - Stanford University
- For over three decades, NATO has endeavoured to establish a collaborative relationship with Russia, fostering dialogue and practical cooperation in mutually beneficial areas. However, despite these efforts, Russia has persistently breached the established norms and principles that underpin a secure and predictable European security framework, with a notable escalation in violations over the past decade.
- Russia’s aggressive and illegitimate war against Ukraine has not only disrupted peace but has also significantly altered the security landscape. Given its hostile policies and actions, NATO cannot view Russia as a partner. The Russian Federation is identified as the most substantial and direct threat to the security of NATO Allies and the overall peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. Despite this, NATO expresses a willingness to maintain open channels of communication with Moscow, aiming to manage and reduce risks, prevent escalation, and enhance transparency. It is emphasized that NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia. The Alliance commits to responding to Russian threats and hostile actions in a unified and responsible manner.
-
History of NATO – Russia Relations
- The historical context of NATO-Russia relations reflects a journey from attempts at partnership to current strained dynamics. For over 30 years, NATO sought to build a partnership with Russia, marked by dialogues and practical cooperation. This effort began after the Cold War, with Russia joining forums like the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and later participating in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (1997).
- Collaboration unfolded as Russia joined the Partnership for Peace program in 1994 and contributed peacekeepers to NATO-led operations in the late 1990s. The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act established formal relations through the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council (PJC). Despite a freeze in relations over differences during the Kosovo crisis in 1999, cooperation resumed following NATO’s air campaign in Kosovo.
- The NATO-Russia Council (NRC) replaced the PJC in 2002, fostering equal partnership on security issues. To facilitate communication, Russia established a diplomatic mission to NATO in 1998, while NATO opened an Information Office in Moscow (2001) and a Military Liaison Mission (2002).
- Disruptions occurred in 2008 when Russia’s military actions in Georgia led to the temporary suspension of NRC meetings and cooperation, which resumed in 2009. However, in 2014, NATO suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation with Russia due to its military intervention in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea.
- In October 2021, Russia suspended diplomatic and NATO mission work in Moscow, and NATO regrets the curtailment of political channels. Despite this, NATO emphasizes its commitment to maintaining military lines of communication to enhance predictability and transparency, calling on Russia to do the same.
-
Key Reasons Driving NATO – Russia Conflict
- Russia’s reaction to the trilateral statement
- In July 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a warning that military action would ensue if Finland joined NATO. The Russian ambassador to Finland reiterated this caution in October 2017, emphasizing potential serious consequences for bilateral relations. Despite these warnings, Finland and Sweden were often regarded as de facto NATO members due to their close cooperation with the alliance. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia significantly boosted support for NATO membership in both Scandinavian countries. In response, they submitted a joint NATO application in May 2022, leading to an official invitation to join NATO in June 2022. Finland formally became a NATO member state on April 4, 2023, while Sweden’s NATO accession faced delays but appeared likely within the coming year.
- The trilateral statement of intent to join NATO was perceived as unlikely to provoke a significant response from Russia, a notion reinforced by the absence of any military retaliation since Finland’s accession into NATO. It is anticipated that Russia may focus on militarizing the Arctic or the Kaliningrad exclave in the Baltics. However, immediate military capabilities for such actions may be constrained as long as active fighting continues in Ukraine.
- Crisis on the Belarus EU border
- The de facto president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, extended his rule in 2020 through a controversial election that the EU deemed to be marked by intimidation and violent repression of peaceful protesters, opposition figures, and journalists. In response, the EU imposed restrictive measures against Belarus in October 2020.
- A significant escalation occurred in May 2021 when Belarus forced the landing of a Ryanair flight 2021 that was en route from Greece to Lithuania, leading the EU Council to enact a ban on Belarusian carriers overflying EU airspace and accessing EU airports.
- In June 2021, Belarus orchestrated the transit of migrants toward the EU, particularly to Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia. The EU and NATO interpreted this movement of migrants as a hybrid attack, aimed at destabilizing EU borders and internal stability. Although the crisis diminished by late 2021 due to reduced direct air links between Belarus and the Middle East, attempts by irregular migrants to enter the EU persisted.
- The situation escalated with the potential militarization of the conflict. Belarus and Russia conducted large-scale military manoeuvres near the Polish border in 2021. Belarus played a role in supporting Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. These actions prompted additional sanctions against individuals linked to the leadership in Minsk, with the possibility of more sanctions if Belarus directly engages in Russia’s war in Ukraine. The situation remains complex and dynamic, with implications for regional security and international relations.
- Conflicts with Ukraine
- In early February 2022, tensions between Russia and NATO escalated to a crisis point when Russia deployed a substantial number of troops—up to 190,000—along the Russian and Belarusian border with Ukraine. Russia issued warnings that it was prepared to use military force to achieve its objectives. The situation further deteriorated with the commencement of a large-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, leading to a nadir in relations between Russia and NATO.
- In response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, and Canada implemented a range of sanctions aimed at diminishing Russia’s ability to finance its territorial conquest.
- Simultaneously, Russia responded to Western sanctions by strengthening bilateral ties with China. Before the invasion of Ukraine, Russia and China had already signed significant deals about the supply of oil and gas. These agreements included a deal between Rosneft Oil Co. and China National Petroleum Corp., outlining the supply of 100 million metric tons (equivalent to 200,821 barrels per day) of oil and 10 billion cubic meters per year of gas, as reported by S&P Global Platts. The geopolitical landscape continues to evolve, shaped by these developments and their global implications.
- NATO condemns Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, labelling it as illegal, unjustifiable, and unprovoked. NATO emphasizes that this action poses a severe threat to Euro-Atlantic and global security and stability while constituting a blatant violation of international law. In alignment with United Nations (UN) General Assembly resolutions, NATO Allies demand an immediate cessation of hostilities by Russia, urging the complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukraine.
- Additionally, NATO calls on Russia to adhere fully to international humanitarian law. The organization insists on providing safe and unimpeded humanitarian access and assistance to all individuals in need. The statement highlights the significant human suffering and large-scale displacements caused by Russia’s actions, with a particular impact on women and children. Russia is held accountable for the resulting humanitarian catastrophe, with no tolerance for impunity regarding war crimes and other atrocities. These include attacks on civilians, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and actions that deprive millions of Ukrainians of essential services. The statement underscores the necessity of holding those responsible for violations and abuses of human rights and international humanitarian law accountable.
-
NATO’S Defence
- The NATO alliance has taken significant measures to enhance its deterrence and defence posture in response to evolving security challenges. As of now, more than 40,000 troops, along with substantial air and naval assets, operate under direct NATO command in the eastern part of the Alliance. This force is further supported by tens of thousands of troops from national deployments of NATO member states.
- To fortify its defence capabilities, NATO has established four new multinational battlegroups in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, complementing existing battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. These battlegroups span NATO’s eastern flank from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. The alliance has undergone a fundamental shift in its deterrence and defence posture, as agreed upon at the 2022 Madrid Summit. This includes strengthening forward defences, scaling up battlegroups, transforming the NATO Response Force, and increasing high-readiness forces to over 300,000. The overhaul constitutes the most significant transformation of collective defence and deterrence since the Cold War.
- At the 2023 Vilnius Summit, Allies expanded on the Madrid decisions by approving new regional defense plans against the primary threats of Russia and terrorism. NATO Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to invest a minimum of 2% of Gross Domestic Product annually in defence and endorsed a Defense Production Action Plan to accelerate joint procurement, enhance interoperability, and stimulate investment and production capacity.
- Beyond military capabilities, NATO Allies are bolstering the resilience of their societies and infrastructure. This involves enhancing cyber capabilities and defences, supporting each other in the face of cyber-attacks, doubling naval presence in strategic areas, and increasing security around critical infrastructure. Intelligence sharing and surveillance efforts have been intensified to protect crucial undersea and energy infrastructure. Additionally, NATO members are enhancing preparedness for chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, fortifying energy security, and improving resilience against hybrid threats, including disinformation. These comprehensive measures reflect NATO’s commitment to adapting and strengthening its capabilities to address emerging security challenges.
-
A Year Into The Russia-Ukraine War
- The Russia-Ukraine war has been ongoing for over 15 months, with analysts noting that the Russian strategy seems to focus on undermining the Ukrainian population’s support for resisting the invasion. This is achieved through the bombing of civilian targets and critical infrastructure. Since early October 2022, Russia has intensified its attacks, using missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles to strike cities across Ukraine and targeting essential national infrastructure in numerous swarm missile attacks.
- Despite Ukraine claiming to have intercepted a significant portion, up to 90%, of these attacks using its air defences, the strikes have inflicted substantial damage. This damage has led to a reduction in power generation capacity by as much as 50%, resulting in large-scale blackouts.
- However, a February 2023 poll conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology indicates that, despite the destruction and challenges faced by Ukraine, 87% of respondents in the country still support continued resistance to Russia. Furthermore, the poll revealed strong opposition to territorial concessions to Russia. This suggests that, despite the severe impact on daily life and infrastructure, there remains a high level of determination among the Ukrainian population to resist the Russian invasion. The conflict continues to have profound humanitarian, geopolitical, and security implications.
-
Consequences
- Governments and businesses in NATO countries and Ukraine have alleged that Russian state-linked groups are responsible for cyber-attacks on digital infrastructure. These cyber conflicts, marked by a cycle of attacks and counter-attacks, have heightened geopolitical risks and have tangible effects on credit conditions and energy markets. In response, Russia has accused NATO and Ukraine of participating in retaliatory cyber-attacks.
- In 2022, Russia’s largest internet service provider, Rostelecom, reported a significant number of critical web attacks. Specifically, there were 21.5 million recorded attacks against 600 Russian businesses, spanning various sectors such as government, finance, retail, and telecom. Moscow emerged as the most targeted region in the country during the same year.
- This escalation in cyber warfare not only poses a direct threat to digital infrastructure but also contributes to the broader tensions in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, impacting various aspects of national and international security. The situation underscores the growing importance of cybersecurity and the potential economic and political consequences of cyber-attacks in today’s interconnected world.
-
Geopolitical Impact
- Companies operating in both regions are impacted by the conflict between NATO and Russia. In Russia, discrimination against foreign businesses has accelerated since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 and the subsequent economic sanctions imposed by NATO members. Many businesses chose to divest Russian operations or close offices operating in Russia following the invasion, making it more challenging for businesses from NATO countries to operate in Russia. Russia’s response of introducing capital controls and regulatory restrictions to prevent more than 1,000 Western companies’ divestment of Russian assets is likely to increase compliance risks further. Western companies may face obstacles in Russian court cases. The likelihood of biased judgments is expected to rise as Moscow seeks to retaliate against Western sanctions. This may pose difficulties for international companies seeking to exit the Russian market and realize the market value of their assets.text-gray-950 dark:text-gray-400 dark:hover:text-gray-200 disabled:dark:hover:text-gray-400 md:invisible md:group-hover:visible md:group-[.final-completion]:visible” style=”font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;”>
- The situation between Russia and Ukraine is highly volatile, marked by ongoing kinetic fighting and concerns about potential escalation involving NATO countries or Belarus. Despite the volatile conditions, the international community has been proactive in trying to prevent further escalation. Both China and India have offered diplomatic support for a ceasefire, signalling a collective interest in resolving the conflict peacefully. However, questions persist about which entities possess the credibility to facilitate a lasting resolution.
- The current conflict underscores the critical need for a coordinated international response to contain and resolve the crisis. While diplomatic efforts are being made, the long-term continuation of the war between Russia and Ukraine could have far-reaching consequences, destabilizing markets and permanently altering global supply chains.
- The key points of contention revolve around Russia’s apparent focus on gaining acceptance for its current territorial control, while Ukraine insists on maintaining its territorial integrity and demands a complete withdrawal of Russian forces. The fundamental differences in these positions highlight the complexity of the conflict and the challenging path toward a resolution. The ongoing conflict underscores the urgency for the international community to work collectively to address the crisis, ensure stability, and prevent further escalation.