After the end of the Summit held on 3-4 December in the capital city of England London and dedicated to 70-year anniversary of NATO, the French president Emmanuel Macron wrote in the social nets that Russia is not an enemy of the Alliance. According to Macron, despite certain differences existing in the political vectors by view of the strategic interests, NATO and Russia are even partners, in number of issues: “Who is NATO’s enemy? Russia is not enemy, It still remains as a threat, but at the same time, it is even a partner of NATO in some aspects. Today, international terrorism, especially the Islamic terrorism, is our enemy”.
As for the dialogue, Macron in the same post emphasized that in the current situation the entire civilized world necessarily needs a dialogue with the Kremlin. Moreover, the policy of boycott and isolation of Russia pursued by them up now, made it clear that refusing dialogue with Russia did not make Europe more protected.
What kind of message this open statement of the French president means for the civilized world, what this approach may change on the world arena and, what kinds of strategic correctives in Georgia’s foreign-political may become needed on this reason? – Guram Nikolaishvili, Lieutenant-General. former Chief of the General Staff of Georgia discusses these items
-, Mr. Guram, a few days ago the French president Emmanuel Macron declared that Russia is not an enemy of NATO and hat a dialog with Russia is necessary. Consequently, he became a subject of the sharpest criticism, by side of certain circles of experts and diplomats (including the western diplomats)/ What do you think, is his statement adequative and, what kind of message it is for small countries, which consider that just the Alliance is a sole guarantor for their security?
-, This last summit was distinguished from other earlier summits because its preconditions were more difficult. Some countries appeared in the core of the Alliance, for which existence of this military block in this form and architecture , is no longer satisfactory. Let’s take Turkey, for instance. It is one of the most important countries in this organization due to its strategic location, industry, economy, human resources, and what is more important – by its military potential. But, when Turkey’s relations with Russia became extremely tensioned and almost military confrontation happened, the county did not receive any practical support from the Alliance. Theoretically, it meant a very simple thing: Article 5 of the NATO Treaty which is the main idea and an outcome point of existence of the Alliance, in this given case turned to be only formal , the Treaty practically remained on the sheet of paper and really, probably the second strongest country after Russia in Europe, practically stood one-to-one with this very difficult political task. This case has demonstrated once again, that the collective defense system as a single geopolitical monolith does not exist; There exist only interests and strategic tasks of certain countries which not only do not coincide with each other in all situations, but may become really controversial from each other, despite the fact that we talk about the countries integrated into one military block.
As for the statement made by the French president hat Russia is not an enemy, and vice versa, it is even a partner of the alliance in some aspects, off course it is difficult to say unequivocally that Russia it’s the partner of the Alliance in this or that issue, but, one thing is obvious: Macron’s assessment contradicts the resolution adopted by the London Summit, where it is indicated clearly, by black on the white paper, that just Russia is the threat enemy number one for the Alliance. The Resolution is also interesting by view that Russia, China, and terrorism are considered in one and the same context and, it means that the Washington’s position was dominating on the Summit, but, this not a problem, since America always was a dominant state in the Alliance. The problem is that today, Europe is forced to pay comparably more political and economic “fee” for remaining under the security umbrella, under the patronage of the USA, that is the result of the policy pursued by the current “White House” administration, while Trump, in practically all his statements blames the west that USA is the largest contributor country in the Alliance. Does this mean that a conflict of interests exists among the leading member states of the Alliance?
-, Conflict of interests? In my opinion, it is said loudly. I would say otherwise: As you know, NATO was founded in 1949, 70 years ago. During this period the world geopolitical agenda has undergone certain changes, which, naturally, made relevant corrections in the strategic interests of independent countries, including the Alliance member states too, of course
As for the statement made by the French president, that, I think cannot be surprising that caused certain stir in the west and that such the rhetoric of Macron is not the first case and, as you know, even mentioned NATO as the organization with a dead brain, I think that we may consider this statement as a certain ideological-political implication of dismantle of the Alliance. However, France is not today a sole country which statehood interests are not met by the Alliance. Turkey already openly declares that it will support the plan of Organization targeted at strengthening the defense of Baltic States, if the Alliance will not recognize as terrorist those forces against whom Turkey fights. By the way, on the background of all this political wrestling and trade, Moscow and Ankara work on a new contract for purchasing by Ankara the Anti-missile System C-400, It means, that the Washington’s military-and-industrial hegemony, that says that all the Alliance member states and not only they but their satellite like us should equip their military forces by weapons manufactured in America, is broken in this case. This is a certain signal to Washington, that the universe is no longer one-poled and without alternative, by view of political vector. It is at least by two-poled and, the unreversed military-and-industrial development taking place in Russia is a clear example of this. Of course everybody understands that after the disintegration of the USSR, Russia was a threat for NATO, while Washington made a scarecrow from it. . .
-, What does a determined threat mean?
– After disintegration of the Soviet Union, when a huge buffer had already existed between Russia and the west in a form of a socialistic camp, Europe had nothing to worry about, but, a permanent military-and-political intervention of the Alliance that wanted to catch a large part of the Soviet area and create a certain arc around Russia, needed an icon of enemy. This ideological scheme was effective in 1990s when Moscow had not practically a time for implementing its globalistic policy, while today the situation is cardinally different: The Kremlin is a separate orbit on the international arena, it is not a scarecrow artificially created by others. Today, Russia creates a real political vector
Now, let’s talk about Georgia: if the policy of permanent confrontations, controversies, sanctions and isolation of Russia did not make Europe more secured, how will it work for disintegrated, poor, split-in parts Georgia? I ask our premier, president, parliament speaker: Can Europe protect us from the Russian threat in term when it even does not imagine it own security without dialog with Russia?!
-, What do you think, why does the Government need the lie as if NATO will protect us?
-, I think that today, there are several categories forces gathered in our political spectrum: the first – which is not interested at all in the statehood interests of Georgia and fulfills unconditionally the destructive instructions of the west – more of Washington, in this case, against Russia; The second force is the one which seeks to become in the power, and flatters permanently before Washington and wants to assure that is able to irritate more Russia; And the third – which is too far from the geopolitical reality of the contemporary world. All these three forces are successful in destruction of our country. In any case, competitions between them already caused 2008 August War, lost of 1/3 part of our territory and, nobody knows what will happen tomorrow . . .
– What can be a way out in this situation?
– Today, the only way for us is a military-and-political non-alignment. I repeat: 80-million Turkey came to the conclusion that Alliance no longer meets its interests. Do not forget that we speak about the country which lost only 12 wars in the whole history of its existence
As for dialog and regulation of our relations with Russia, without this, it seems impossible to return the country to a normal path. Until the political spectrum is occupied by aggressive and reactionist political minority that glues to you Putin’s agent label and starts a dirty campaign against you immediately as soon as you say even a word about the necessity of dialog with the Kremlin, no peace will come to the country. Any attempt of this or that healthy and state-mind acting force to start dialog with Russia, is met by these reactionists with provocations. This is our current reality that is out of touch with the world geopolitical conjuncture and, as time goes, as it runs us to a gap, in conditions of permanent fights between the super states.
Interviewed by Jaba Zhvania