NATO Joint Forces presentation. Problems of NATO's expansion to the east
Description of the presentation by individual slides:
1 slide
Slide description:
Ministry of General and Professional Education of the Sverdlovsk Region State budgetary educational institution of secondary vocational education of the Sverdlovsk region “Kamyshlov Pedagogical College” Topic: “NATO and its role in the modern world” Kamyshlov, 2014
2 slide
Slide description:
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an alliance designed to protect the power of a country and the values that this power serves. NATO defends a certain type of human culture and civilization.
3 slide
Slide description:
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO countries on the world map The official languages of NATO are English and French
4 slide
Slide description:
1949 In April, after negotiations with the United States and Canada on the creation of a single North Atlantic Alliance, the Washington Joint Defense Treaty was signed. It was joined by: Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Norway, Portugal and the USA. 1948 In March, five Western European countries: Belgium, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France signed the Brussels Treaty and created a common defense system. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 in Washington State. Since July 1966, France has withdrawn from the NATO military organization, remaining a participant in the political structure of the North Atlantic Treaty. In 2009 she returned to all abandoned structures.
5 slide
Slide description:
NATO does not have its own armed forces. All countries (except Iceland) participating in the NATO military organization contribute their forces and equipment, which together make up the integrated military structure of the Alliance.
6 slide
Slide description:
Four more European states: -Greece -Turkey, -Germany -Spain In 1952. and 1982 Poland Hungary Czech Republic March 12, 1999 Latvia Lithuania Estonia Slovakia Slovenia Romania Bulgaria In 2004 There are now 26 countries in NATO and applications from other countries to join this international organization are being considered.
7 slide
Slide description:
The NATO emblem is a white compass on a dark blue background. It was adopted on October 4, 1953 by the North Atlantic Council as the official symbol of the North Atlantic Alliance, after which a flag-raising ceremony was held in Paris. The circle symbolizes unity and cooperation, and the compass rose represents a common path to peace.
8 slide
Slide description:
NATO Headquarters is the political and administrative center of the Alliance. NATO NATO Headquarters The headquarters is located in Belgium, in the north-eastern part of Brussels, on the Boulevard Leopold III. It houses delegations of member countries, liaison and interaction bureaus or diplomatic missions of partner countries.
Slide 9
Slide description:
The highest political body of NATO, which consists of representatives of all member states and meets under the chairmanship of the NATO Secretary General. Council decisions are made unanimously. North Atlantic Council (NATO Council)
10 slide
Slide description:
Military Planning Committee Since December 1966, the highest military-political body of the organization has become the Military Planning Committee, which meets twice a year at its sessions at the level of defense ministers.
11 slide
Slide description:
The Secretary General is the chief official of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, having the status of an international civil servant. The Secretary General is responsible for leading the Alliance's consultation and decision-making process and ensuring that decisions are implemented. Jens Stoltenberg A statesman from a NATO member country becomes Secretary General. Appointed for a four-year term. Countries nominate candidates for the position and hold informal diplomatic consultations to select a suitable candidate. The final decision is made when consensus is reached on one candidate. At the end of his four-year term of office, the Secretary-General may be asked to extend that term for a further year. NATO SECRETARY GENERAL
12 slide
Slide description:
Country Military Budget ($) Number of Armed Forces Tanks Air Force Navy Poison. weapons NATO member countries NATO USA France Great Britain 636000000000 59600330000 59300000000 1 426 700 389 000 640000 11500 4000 636 7140 780 527 5681 496 120 Yes (2100 b. d.) Yes (350 b.g.) Yes (200 b.g. ) Germany Italy 45200000000 37060000000 325 000 112 000 2 521 1230 1404 564 265 158 - - Turkey Canada 22066134000 18695342000 613000 145000 3363 111 4 562 370 370 240 - - Spain 17700000000 147000 552 315 215 -
Slide 13
Slide description:
NATO member countries Netherlands Poland Greece 12000000000 11791000000 7934000000 74.100 12200 177600 152,236 1,723 17 45,418 55 122,224 - - - Norway Belgium 572,500 0000 4000000000 230000 39 420 165 132 142 120 44 22 - - Portugal Denmark 3497800000 3271600000 75000 21 400 73 238 141 108 - 45 - - Romania 2900000000 90000 315 13 - Czech Republic 2170000000 12000 175 129 - - 48
Slide 14
Slide description:
Hungary 1350000000 13000 254 322 - - Bulgaria. Lithuania 730000000 490800000 7 260 12700 201 115 254 168 340 85 - - NATO member countries NATO Slovenia 370000000 9550 82 36 - - Estonia Luxembourg 259000000 231076480 35 00 900 56 - 236 - 5 - - - Slovakia 220000000 33000 309 71 - - Latvia 87000000 5800 8 20 15 - Iceland 26000000 - - - - -
The United States and its main military European ally NATO were the main opponents of the USSR for many years, but with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Union, they had a real chance to expand the sphere of their political and military influence not only in the East of Europe, but also in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Georgia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan - these states kindly provided their territories for the deployment of US military bases, and the political course of these powers provides for close political and military cooperation with “overseas” friends. Obviously, the main goal of the Americans and NATO is to place their tactical, offensive missiles as close as possible to Russian territory.
But while the US and NATO are doing well with the Caucasus and Central Asia, they have problems with the East of Europe. Belarus is a reliable ally of Russia, and, despite some disagreements, Moscow can be sure that Minsk will never give the green light to the deployment of foreign troops on its territory (obviously, this is why Lukashenko is so hated in the West). Ukraine after the Orange Revolution was inclined to station NATO military units on its territory, and, moreover, Kyiv sought to find common ground with Brussels in order to become a full member of the alliance. With the coming to power of V. Yanukovych, the political vector changed towards Russia, and now NATO is having problems, as Kiev strives for military friendship with Moscow, confirmation of this course are the agreements signed exactly a year ago between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine in Kharkov.
Obviously, this state of affairs cannot fully satisfy either the United States or NATO. In search of a way out of the situation and a radical change in the military balance in the region in its favor, the answer came, one might say, somewhat unexpectedly, from Moldova. This state practically consists of two parts - Transnistria, which is fully supported by Russia, and Moldova, which seeks to join Romania and thus become part of a united Europe. It is this desire that Brussels uses to its advantage. Chisinau is ready to do anything to get to Europe, and for a small promise to solve the problem, the Moldovan government is ready to open its borders to NATO and the United States.
Expert opinion
Geodetic justification for NATO's expansion to the east
In 2011, a national system for determining the location of the desired or studied object (Moldpos) using the global satellite navigation system GNSS will be created in Moldova. To do this, 10-12 special stations will be deployed on the territory of Moldova, which will be combined into a network and will be able to supply the necessary data around the clock, non-stop. The project is estimated at 1 million euros. Funds for its implementation are provided in the form of a grant from Norway. The project is designed for 2 years.
Commentary by a rocket surveyor
The location of any object on the earth's surface can be determined in various ways. Different countries are developing their systems in the form of a GGS (state geodetic network) - certain points on the earth's surface, the location of which is described in special catalogs. The contents of the catalogs are top secret. Initially, this system was developed to determine the shape and mathematical model of the Earth's ellipsoid. Subsequently, with the advent of high-tech rocket and space weapons, the GGS system began to serve as a reference geodetic network for the orientation of strategic missiles. Different countries used their own mathematical model of the earth. In the USSR, the Pulkovo ellipsoid model was used. In the United States and other countries, an ellipsoid model called WGS 84 (World Geodetic System 84) is used. There is a certain difference between the two models (from several meters to 100m in different parts of the Earth). This gives a different interpretation of the coordinates of the same point on the earth's surface. With the advent of missile weapons in the USSR and the USA, these models began to be used for missile guidance. It was the difference in systems that caused the missile guidance error. The United States was the first to realize this, deciding to link all other countries where geo-strategic interests are pursued to its coordinates. Accordingly, the first wave of expansion of the United States and NATO began as the deployment of the WGS 84 system on the territory of these countries. In simple terms, a geodetic seizure of lands and entire countries took place. 5 years before Romania joined NATO, a similar system for determining coordinates was deployed. Consequently, the deployment of this system in a particular country serves as an indicator of NATO membership. It is also known that the flight trajectories of strategic cruise missiles are calculated in advance. Correction zones are also developed for each flight path. A cruise missile, flying through the correction zone, refines the coordinates of its location and corrects its trajectory. The emergence of the GPS system (GNSS) and the Russian analogue of GLONASS opens up new technological opportunities not only for cartography and cadastre, but also for strategic weapons in the first place. Such systems are camouflaged as civilian projects and financed through 3 countries. Consequently, the deployment of cruise missile correction systems at the final stage of flight should be considered as an unfriendly act towards neighboring countries and as a means of potential aggression, at the same time as one of the elements of strategic weapons. What is most interesting is that the United States has so far managed to hide from the International Community a new type of aggression – GEODETIC AGGRESSION, therefore there is no way to resist this type of expansion with legal international instruments. It should be noted that Russia is lagging behind in this area, the GLONASS system is not deployed abroad, and there are even elements of GNSS GEODETIC AGGRESSION on the territory of RUSSIA itself. Such a system for determining coordinates positions Moldova among a number of unfriendly countries in relation to Transnistria, Ukraine, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and Russia in the first place. Thus, Moldova, having become a technological hostage to the GNSS system, essentially exposes its territory to retaliatory attacks from these countries (even terrorist ones).
Strategic cruise missiles of the USSR and the Russian Federation are aimed with an accuracy of 30-100 m. This accuracy is considered sufficient to destroy strategic targets. The absolute accuracy of determining coordinates in the new system is 5 mm in three planes. Taking this into account, any points on the territory of Moldova, Transnistria, Ukraine, Russia, after the introduction of this system into operation, will become potential targets of NATO cruise missiles with an accuracy of 1 m and high-precision bombs with an accuracy of 5 mm. Technological warfare and double standards are the official long-term military strategy of the United States and NATO. A GNSS system deployed on the territory of neutral countries should be considered a violation of the neutrality and sovereignty of these countries, a means of putting pressure on the government structure of these countries. An act of goodwill by Moldova in an effort to maintain its neutrality would be Moldova's entry into the GLONASS coverage area. In this case, Moldova would indeed retain its military-technological neutral status.
Commentary by a military psychologist
The author of the article in the early 2000s studied the military strategies of different countries and NATO inclusive at the Academy of General. Headquarters of Romania (King Carol I). Technologies and planning of psychological operations within NATO operations. It is known that NATO's long-term planning covers a period of 30-50 years (starting point 1994 - PFP program). Thus, Moldova voluntarily exposed its territory to potential strategic bombings from both the Alliance and Russia. This leads to the conclusion that NATO allows territorial disputes to be resolved through military operations in Eastern Europe. The project is camouflaged as a civil cadastral project, which will additionally provide comprehensive information about the current economic potential of the country, each enterprise, manager, budget, GDP of the country as a whole, each owner and his financial capabilities. This project should also be considered as a global project of the US NSA to implement global information control, as part of the globalization strategy. It should be noted that in 2010, the Alliance for European Integration already provided one of the NATO partners with personal data for each resident of the country. Thus, NATO’s global strategy completes the second stage of “passive” expansion in third world countries, which will be followed by a political stage (if necessary, a military operation in Transnistria, but more on that in another article).
To view the presentation with pictures, design and slides, download its file and open it in PowerPoint on your computer.
Text content of presentation slides: History in the faces Lenin, for his part, respected and emphasized not only military, but mainly organizational talents ///////. It was clear, however, that this sometimes caused some discontent and jealousy among Lenin’s collaborators. Lenin probably appreciated the revolutionary temperament /////// and remembered its role in preparing and carrying out the seizure of power in October 1917; in addition, everyone knew very well that //////// actually created the Red Army and, thanks to his tireless energy and fiery temperament, ensured its victory over the white movement. “In 1918, security service units consisted of sailors and Latvians. One such sailor entered the office ///// drunk. He made a remark, the sailor responded with a three-story prisoner. ////// grabbed a revolver and, having killed the sailor on the spot with several shots, immediately fell in an epileptic fit.” Boris Bazhanov, who worked in the secretariat ///// gave a very correct assessment of his character: “The main character traits ////// are firstly, secrecy, secondly, cunning, thirdly, vindictiveness. Never ////// does not share his innermost plans with anyone. He very rarely shares his thoughts and impressions with others. He is silent a lot. In general, he does not speak unless necessary. He is very cunning, has second thoughts in everything, and when he speaks, he never speaks sincerely "An insult never forgives, it will be remembered for ten years and in the end it will be dealt with" Minister, then Minister-Chairman of the Provisional Government (1917), In June 1918, Kerensky, under the guise of a Serbian officer, left the former Russian Empire. He died on June 11, 1970 at his home in New York from cancer at the age of 89. The local Russian Orthodox Church refused to perform his funeral service, considering him responsible for the fall of Russia. The body was transported to London and buried in the Putney Vale Cemetery, which does not belong to any faith. According to our concepts, it is not the land that should own man, but man should own the land.... Until labor of the highest quality is applied to the land, labor that is free and not forced, our land will not be able to withstand competition with the land of our neighbors, and the land is Russia. On March 21, 1917, A. Kerensky, the new Minister of Justice, met in Tsarskoe Selo with the arrested...... Later Kerensky remarked about his interlocutor: “A disarmingly charming man!” After the second meeting with the Sovereign, Kerensky admitted: “But ..... is far from stupid, contrary to what we thought about him.” “Kerensky was fascinated by the friendliness that naturally radiated from .... , and several times I realized that I called him: “……..””. “Don’t think about what I said,” and he grinned slyly, “you just can’t understand what’s going on here. But just remember: as long as I’m alive, then they are alive, and if they kill me, well, then you’ll find out what will happen, you’ll see,” he added mysteriously.” (1859-1924) - Russian politician, leader of the Union of October 17 party (Octobrists); Chairman of the State Duma of the third and fourth convocations. One of the leaders of the February Revolution Emigrated in 1920 Died in Yugoslavia in 1924 Soviet politician and statesman, revolutionary. Member of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) One of the organizers of the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, the execution of the royal family and decossackization (because of which hundreds of thousands of people died in the Don and Kuban) Bolshevik, according to whom they did not care about 90% of the Russian people, as long as 10% survived before the world revolution. On November 14, 1924, the Yekaterinburg City Council decided to name this city after the revolutionary, the first chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee Viktor Mikhailovich Chernov (1873, 1952, New York, USA) Leader of the party formed in 1902. He categorically did not accept the October Revolution. On October 25 at 12 o'clock at the congress of peasant deputies of the Western Front he called for a fight against the Bolshevik government. At the Constituent Assembly on January 5, 1918 ..... he was elected its chairman. During World War II he participated in the French Resistance Movement. Soon after the liberation of France he left for the USA. ….. owns numerous works on philosophy, political economy, history and sociology. Among those expelled in the summer - autumn of 1922 (abroad and to remote areas of the country), the largest number were university teachers and, in general, people in the humanities. Of the 225 people: doctors - 45, professors, teachers - 41, economists, agronomists, cooperators - 30, writers - 22, lawyers - 16, engineers - 12, politicians - 9, religious figures - 2, students - 34. government company RSFSR on the expulsion of people disliked by the authorities abroad in September and November 1922. “Philosophical steamer” “Emigrant steamer” “Professorial steamer” “We will cleanse Russia for a long time... “The intelligentsia is not the brain of the nation, but shit,” wrote V. Lenin at one time... Fyodor Ivanovich Chaliapin (February 13, 1873, Kazan - 12 April 1938, Paris) Russian opera singer (high bass), soloist of the Bolshoi Theater, People's Artist of the Republic (1918-1927, the title was returned in 1991) in 1927, by a resolution of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, he was deprived of the title of People's Artist and the right to return to the USSR; this was justified because he did not want to “return to Russia and serve the people whose title of artist was awarded to him” or, according to other sources, because he allegedly donated money to monarchist emigrants. In 1984, his son achieved the reburial of his ashes in Moscow at the Novodevichy cemetery.
Attached files
Description of the presentation by individual slides:
1 slide
Slide description:
2 slide
Slide description:
NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization (English) OTAN - Organization du traité de l "Atlantique Nord (French) NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Russian) NATO countries on the world map The official languages of NATO are English and French
3 slide
Slide description:
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is an alliance designed to protect not only the power of a particular country, but also the values \u200b\u200bthat this power is placed in the service of. NATO does not protect state sovereignty or someone’s geopolitical interests, but a certain type of human culture and civilization.
4 slide
Slide description:
In April 1949, after negotiations with the United States and Canada on the creation of a single North Atlantic Alliance, the Washington Treaty on Joint Defense was signed. It was joined by: Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Norway, Portugal and the USA. In March 1948, five Western European countries: Belgium, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France signed the Brussels Treaty and created a common defense system. NATO does not have its own armed forces. All countries participating in the NATO military organization contribute forces and equipment, which together make up the integrated military structure of the Alliance. B The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 in Washington State. Iceland is the only NATO member that does not have regular armed forces; this was one of the conditions for the country's entry into the organization. Iceland only has a coast guard. It was also decided to train Icelandic volunteers at bases in Norway to participate in NATO peacekeeping missions. Since July 1966, France has withdrawn from the NATO military organization, remaining a participant in the political structure of the North Atlantic Treaty. In 2009 she returned to all abandoned structures.
5 slide
Slide description:
Four more European states: Greece, Türkiye, Germany, Spain 1952. and 1982 In Poland Hungary Czech Republic March 12, 1999 Latvia Lithuania Estonia Slovakia Slovenia Romania Bulgaria Joined NATO Now there are already 26 countries in NATO and applications from other countries to join this international organization are being considered. 2004 B
6 slide
Slide description:
West Germany joined. The Saarland reunited with Germany in 1957, and on October 3, 1990 - a united Germany. NATO NATO member countries Greece From 1974 to 1980, Greece did not take part in the NATO military organization due to tense relations with another member of the bloc - Turkey. Does not participate in the NATO military organization. Germany Spain
7 slide
Slide description:
The NATO emblem is a white compass on a dark blue background. It was adopted on October 4, 1953 by the North Atlantic Council as the official symbol of the North Atlantic Alliance, after which a flag-raising ceremony was held in Paris. The circle symbolizes unity and cooperation, and the compass rose represents a common path to peace.
8 slide
Slide description:
NATO Headquarters is the political and administrative center of the Alliance, where the main political decision-making body of NATO, the North Atlantic Council, is permanently located. NATO NATO Headquarters The headquarters is located in Belgium, in the north-eastern part of Brussels, on Boulevard Léopold III, 1110 Brussels, Belgium. It houses delegations of member countries, liaison and interaction bureaus or diplomatic missions of partner countries.
Slide 9
Slide description:
The highest political body of NATO which consists of representatives of all member states and holds its meetings under the chairmanship of the NATO Secretary General. The North Atlantic Council may meet at the level of foreign ministers and heads of state and government. Council decisions are made unanimously. During the period between sessions, the functions of the NATO Council are performed by the NATO Permanent Council, which includes representatives of all member countries of the bloc with the rank of ambassadors. North Atlantic Council (NATO Council)
10 slide
Slide description:
Military Planning Committee Since December 1966, the highest military-political body of the organization has become the Military Planning Committee, which meets twice a year at its sessions at the level of defense ministers, although formally it consists of permanent representatives. In the period between sessions, the functions of the Military Planning Committee are performed by the Standing Military Planning Committee, which includes representatives of all member countries of the bloc with the rank of ambassadors.
11 slide
Slide description:
The Secretary General is the chief official of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, having the status of an international civil servant. The Secretary General is responsible for leading the Alliance's consultation and decision-making process and ensuring that decisions are implemented. NATO SECRETARY GENERAL Jens Stoltenberg A statesman from a NATO member country becomes the Secretary General. Appointed by member countries for a four-year term. Countries nominate candidates for the position and hold informal diplomatic consultations to select a suitable candidate. The final decision is made when consensus is reached on one candidate. At the end of his four-year term of office, the Secretary-General may be asked to extend that term for a further year.
12 slide
Slide description:
NATO STRATEGIC CONCEPT The new Strategic Concept, approved by NATO members in 1999, defines NATO's primary objectives as follows: to serve as the basis for stability in the Euro-Atlantic region to serve as a forum for consultations on security issues to deter and defend against any threat of aggression against any of the NATO member states to promote effective conflict prevention and actively participate in crisis management to promote the development of comprehensive partnerships, cooperation and dialogue with other countries in the Euro-Atlantic region
Slide 13
Slide description:
North Atlantic Treaty Organization History of Wars Official website of NATO Permanent Mission of Russia to NATO Russian translation of the North Atlantic Treaty (1949) MILITARY INFORMANT NATO Source of information
Since 1993, the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance has formed one of the leading storylines in relations between Russia and the West, in the formation of Russian foreign policy in general, in the struggle of ideas and political currents on the issue of Russia's military-strategic orientation and, ultimately, its civilizational affiliation. At the same time, the history of discussions about NATO expansion indicates deep differences in the perception of the problem by Russian and Western observers. In Russia, officials and most experts involved in “realpolitik” viewed expansion as a consolidated strategy of the West (or at least American elites) and tried to either influence the situation with unsubstantiated threats or limit the damage through agreements with NATO on private issues - thereby demonstrating to both supporters and opponents of expansion in the West their actual recognition of its inevitability. However, the report of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (CFDP) argued that expansion is not predetermined and proposed influencing the elites of the United States and NATO countries in order to block expansion.
Meanwhile, the author of the most fundamental American study on this issue (and written from the perspective of pro-expansionists) believes that NATO’s expansion to the east “was by no means inevitable... At the beginning of its discussion, the prospect of the dissolution of NATO was at least as likely as its expansion...both in the administration and in Congress, only a small handful of people were positive about the idea.”
According to the recognized authorities of the realist school, after the disappearance of the Soviet threat, NATO was doomed to collapse as an alliance that had lost its defensive function, and its preservation and, especially, expansion give grounds for Russian “realists” to believe that the true interests of its participants, and especially the United States, are inherently predatory.
In the Russian community of politicians and experts, there have existed and continue to exist different, in many ways diametrically opposed, points of view regarding NATO expansion to the East. Some believe that the expansion of the alliance creates a direct military threat to Russia from the West, which is pursuing the goal of economic enslavement and dismemberment of the country, while many are convinced that NATO expansion is a natural response to the “imperial ambitions” or “imperial nostalgia” of Moscow and perhaps its only negative effect lies in the indirect propaganda feed of “national communist revenge.”
This polarity in assessments (which largely persists to this day, at least in expert and political circles) reflects the depth of the public split in the assessment of national history and civilizational identity and is itself a factor of national security that requires consideration when carrying out any was foreign policy.
There are enough reasons to assess the expansion of the alliance as a real threat from a military-strategic, political, and cultural-civilizational point of view. The fact that a military threat from NATO is not obvious to a number of experts and politicians is due to its dynamic nature, which in this case means the growing aggressiveness of the alliance as its composition changes and the elites regroup as a result of the victory of supporters of a tougher offensive strategy over the “doves.” The statement of Hungarian Prime Minister V. Orban in the fall of 1999 sounded an alarming signal. about the possibility of deploying nuclear missiles on Hungarian soil.
Although the senior leadership of NATO or its individual members does not currently consider the conduct of any military action against Russia, whether by nuclear or conventional forces, as a realistic scenario, the demonstration of belligerent intentions at a lower level, especially by states on the eastern and southern flanks, represents poses an independent threat to Russia, since it affects psychologically vulnerable elite groups that have lost immunity to various forms of blackmail and forceful pressure both within the country and outside.
Here lies a rather precarious boundary between military and non-military threats, the latter being much more relevant for today’s Russia, although many in the West seem abstract and therefore of secondary importance. NATO’s attack on Russia’s vital interests revives disputes between “Westerners” and their various opponents that are as fruitless as they are destructive to the entire national identity, as well as discussions about whether Russia is a European or Eurasian power or, perhaps, a completely special one , an isolated geopolitical unit. The perception of NATO as a military-political equivalent of Western civilization or Europe as a whole puts Russian Westerners in a situation of a false choice - either to achieve the utopian goal of integrating Russia with NATO at the cost of great humiliation, or to recognize Russia as essentially a non-European, non-Western country, but themselves - something like a fifth column, or at least a civilizational minority, which must, as today, secure access to institutions of power through quasi-democratic methods or resign itself to existence in cultural and political enclaves.
One of the ways to neutralize this cultural-psychological, and therefore political, threat is to abandon the perception of the West as a monolithic, integrated whole, and to give historically transitory institutional formations the status of exponents of a certain absolute idea of the West. Meanwhile, the radical rejection of the analytical tools of the Soviet era, combined with the impoverishment of information and scientific study of the Western world, gave many Russian observers an exaggerated idea of the consolidation of the West (which is, in a sense, the flip side of Russian society’s own, very real disunity). The confrontation within Western, in particular American, society on the issue of the fate of NATO, the presence of serious opposition to expansion, including in power structures, remained unnoticed in Russia or was obscured due to the unprofitability of this information, both for Russian isolationists and for fanatical adherents of total integration with the West. In today's circumstances, an understanding of the deep internal conflicts of the Western world, a refusal to absolutize the temporary balance of forces within it, as well as between the West and other “poles” of the world community, are necessary primarily for Russian Westerners if they want to restore the legitimacy of their direction as an integral part of the Russian sociocultural and the political spectrum.
What resources does Russia have to influence the process of NATO expansion at the current stage? The opportunities for this within the PCA are essentially minimal, since NATO is institutionally interested in further expansion. Therefore, if the passivity of Russian diplomacy in previous structures (CCAC and PfP) led to negative consequences, then at this stage, on the contrary, reducing bilateral contacts to the necessary minimum seems to be the most rational solution. In these circumstances, rapprochement with India, China, the countries of the Near and Middle East pursuing an independent policy, as well as those European countries that still remain neutral, is a condition for preventing geopolitical isolation, but it can only have an indirect impact on the dynamics of NATO expansion.
Today, the key problem of Russian security and foreign policy is the persistent image of Russia as an unprincipled force that takes into account exclusively material factors - an image that has taken root not only in the West, but also in the East, not only among elites, but also in broad sections of public opinion. The internal political circumstances shaping Russia's foreign policy indicate that in the foreseeable future this unattractive image will in any case not fade, and Russia's behavior as a subject of world politics will continue to be based on an assessment of the momentary balance of material resources, outside of any system universal values and long-term principles that would be attractive to a wide range of participants in the global community.
