Computers already firmly implemented in mass consciousness the idea that brutality – this is not only something not typical in today’s world, but rather the image of the time, mode of existence, a product of global processes. Orderly brutality or controlled chaos steel products, increase non-system or even the anti-decisions and trends in world politics and economy, when the liberal ideology can no longer claim to universalism, and market relations are constraint to further successful development of the world’s leading economies. Enhanced features for convergence, but not between the market-state and vulgar-Marxist economic systems, and between enlightened paternalism and false-market determinism. In this way the era increasingly becomes latent, but more “legitimacy” to regulate the use of world resources. With the increased data trends, picking up a contradictory phenomenon: the international institutional redundancy and scarcity of real international cooperation, especially in the formation and development of political, military-political and geo-economic alliances.
90th years were spent in forced strengthen crisis and split NATO, which is independent of further developments, will remain in the form of tangible and quite meaningful trends. At the turn of the century, due to the efforts of U.S. and UK lead partner, managed to curb the increasing division of the alliance, helped by military operations in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Despite the fact that NATO is not involved in operations in Iraq, but the war also contributed to the containment of the centrifugal and divisive process in the Euro-Atlantic relations. A huge blow was dealt to the NATO establishment of the European Rapid Reaction Corps, which emerged in the locomotive by France and Germany and supported by Britain. European defense initiative with great skepticism has been accepted, including in Europe and the U.S. did not immediately able to orientate themselves in this situation, because Washington and tactical approaches have been developed with some delay. The significant shift to the right of government offices of the leading countries of Europe and a favorable prognosis in the settlement of the US-European relations is not justified and had no solid ground, and were caused, most likely, the requirements of the election campaign. An important aspect of strengthening NATO enlargement has, in fact, functions and areas of responsibility of the Alliance to the East, receiving the organization loyal to the U.S. partners and the promotion of new NATO missions. In general, in the early 2000’s European partners are the United States found that a radical leveling of the defense and the political significance of NATO’s dangerous and can lead to undesirable consequences in the global security system. U.S. seeks to implement a new system of global security and providing the most suitable form for their European partners. The answer to the question: will the world be safer if NATO ceased to exist or will lose many of their tasks, yet simple – no. NATO is still necessary to peace and, moreover, at a time when NATO is increasingly associated with European policies. Even opponents of anthological Atlanticist NATO began to perceive a more relaxed, compared with the strategy and the actions of the United States. For example, some Iranian politicians (certainly not all) began to perceive the presence of NATO in the South Caucasus, without still cautious, and Iranian experts working both in Iran and beyond, carefully choosing the various pro-American and anti-American trends in the Alliance . Prominent Arab experts note that a possible replacement for U.S. troops to NATO troops in Iraq would be more acceptable to the Arab world. Now the question arises as to whether NATO’s strategy to become a limitation in the U.S., despite leading the U.S. role in the alliance?
It is clear that the U.S. follow the path of the devaluation of the leading international organizations related to safety, above all, the UN and the OSCE, which at certain stages of the limiters act of U.S. foreign policy and the supporters of legitimate decision-making. In the late 90’s, it seemed that the U.S. will proceed to the devaluation of NATO, but after the proper scale policies, they virtually replaced the UN Atlantic Alliance – a new arena for the adoption of legitimate international decisions. This was facilitated by some key factors – strengthening transnational radical Islamic organizations, the Iranian nuclear threat, the regional ethnic conflicts, Russia’s desire to regain their lost geopolitical position and the associated problems of regional security and, finally, the problem of rising China. Perhaps, in the face of growing challenges and threats, the trend of division and of NATO’s crisis fade away and become maloaktualnoy. The transatlantic relationship in a significant aspect will be saved and will gain new features and content. But one way or another, the former NATO no longer exists and will not be going to form a new content of the Alliance, and is likely to retain strong political component of NATO as a military power has run its course. The tendency has been the creation of the Anglo-Saxon military bloc, or as something within NATO, or as a completely independent, including the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and some other states, the Commonwealth, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan .
The expansion of NATO into Eastern European direction leads to a new strengthening of fundamental threats. This causes not only confusion but also an explicit rejection of the leading European countries in matters such as, for example, the possible accession to NATO of Ukraine and, especially, Georgia, as well as the U.S. desire to assert its strong military presence in the Black Sea basin.New European leaders – Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Mr Brown has managed to express their attitude to the possible accession of Georgia to NATO. These estimates are much more uncertain than in the position of their predecessors. Ukraine, which have significant military-technical and human potential, more desirable member of NATO. In regard to Georgia’s problem is not that it does not meet the requirements of NATO and that NATO, with its comfortable and strict conditions, does not correspond to the Black Sea and Caucasus realities. What is the main factor for this discrepancy? Russia has always had more or less friendly and allied relations with many European countries, as well as the United States. Of the newly admitted NATO states of Eastern Europe, only Poland and the Baltic States to face Russia’s irrational, but more than specific sense. One of the first members of NATO – Greece has always felt sympathy for Russia, and in its defense doctrine and operational plans, the potential enemy was seen Turkey as a neighboring member of the Warsaw Pact – Bulgaria was regarded as a friendly country. At present, NATO members – Greece and Bulgaria, together with Russia form the alternative elements energokommunikatsionnoy system, despite the resistance of the United States. Czech Republic and Hungary, who remember the events of 1956 and 1968, does not have actualized hostility to Russia. Accession of Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia to NATO clearly does not lead to the inclusion of these states into a real “anti-Russian bloc.” From the uniquely pro-American bloc are many states that need to be Russia, not only in terms of putting the energy, but also as a living space. Perhaps one of the errors of Russian policy has been reluctance to establish more friendly relations with Albania and the Albanians, who for centuries fought against the Ottoman Empire. Favorable expectations are in the development of Turkish-Russian relations, there are stories, which could not be more 10 years ago.Inclusion in NATO countries in the Balkan region has not yet led to the set goals to reduce Turkey’s geostrategic role for NATO and the U.S., so the role of Turkey in the near future may become very high in the formation of relations between Russia and NATO. Turkey needs Russia as part of its dialogue with the Western community. Strengthening tandem Turkey-Russia could allow Russia to limit or prevent the spread of the influence of Euro-Atlantic community in the direction of the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Increasing problems in Turkish-American relations has led to what is called into question the universality of “Eurasian corridor” adjusted performance of other energy and communications and geo-economic projects. It should be noted that these trends in Turkish politics are not conjunctural reasons, and based on the deep problems of Turkish society. And finally, the main European partners are Russia, Germany and France, which both became leaders vnutriatlanticheskoy opposition. France and Germany are not satisfied with the progress on the establishment of the European armed forces and are going to create together with Belgium, a closer military alliance, in effect, joining the armed forces. As always, these plans if not deferred, then located on the long pending, but the idea has already been received and not rejected. In the late 90’s the author of the assumption was made regarding the fact that NATO expects the emergence of “clubs” of interest, ie the blocking of goals, preferences and objectives.Insufficient attention is drawn to the position of the Nordic NATO member countries whose intentions and interests clearly pulling on the formation of the “club” within NATO. Accelerated expansion of NATO, will undoubtedly lead to these results. Participation or non-NATO nations in military operations in Iraq to some extent confirmed these assumptions. One of the “Knights of the American political analysts said the author of these lines that the new NATO members from Eastern Europe on their own are not reliable and principled U.S. allies, but rather” selected situation “and are associated with the short term, rather than the strategic choice . In the future, these countries put forward a completely ridiculous issue. In these countries a very strong left-wing ideas, and they are very interested in constructive relations with Russia, and their political and economic elites are subject searching and reflection of new realities.
Quite differently conceived accession to NATO of Georgia. Long, it became apparent that this country is put on the “slaughter”, and with it associated destructive, scandalous situations which are arranged in the framework of the Baltic Syndrome, despite the fact that between Georgia and Russia do not have the problems that exist in Russian-Baltic relations . Other goods are not interested in its partners – neither the West nor the East. Georgia is capable of actually build a new relationship with the departments of the provinces and with its neighbors, is not needed. Georgia set aside well-defined functions, which in recent history have served leftist revolutionary regimes. As acknowledged by a number of British political planners, who with great sympathy for Georgia, “the most unpleasant and unacceptable in expectations for the Europeans is the fact that Georgia ties with NATO resolve all their problems.” Of course, this can not be met and no cause for concern, not only Europeans but also Americans.
Undoubtedly, Europeans and Americans are, if not agreement, then at least an agreement on joint efforts to exert pressure on Russia, including through regional ethnic conflicts. However, for example, the situation in Abkhazia has already indications that the U.S. and the European Union came to the conclusion – if the former metropolis does not offer a more effective way of removing of Abkhazia, which has now been of strategic importance in the new U.S. objectives in the Black Sea from Russia’s influence, it will have to do this without Georgia, that is, directly penetrating into Abkhazia. At the same time, Europeans are trying to identify the principles and methods of its policy, more pacifist and certainly different from the methods of the United States. It is possible that Abkhazia as a regular “An update” is currently a problem in a number of uncontrolled territories, which needs of sovereignty, will be the scene of a controversial and competitive partnership the U.S. and EU, which will lead to the beginning of chronic crisis, in submissions and initiatives in line with the US-European cooperation. But, as the Abkhaz problem is closely linked with the objectives of the United States in the Black Sea, some discrepancy occurs in NATO.
The U.S. has always assumed a backup version of the military-political integration of the South Caucasus, if their admission to NATO would be unacceptable. Moreover, the U.S. is not the ideal entry of the region in NATO, and direct cooperation with them in the field of defense and security. That is, the U.S. does not have big expectations from the NATO activities in the South Caucasus, and consider the membership of these countries in the alliance, most likely as a factor in the Euro-Russian confrontation.There is no doubt that the U.S. and UK are very interested in ensuring stability and security in South Caucasus, as a priority for the successful extraction and transportation of oil and gas. However, it is not antagonistic to the use of processes in the region as a lever of pressure on Russia. These objective interests and the U.S. position will maintain the peaceful coexistence of the South Caucasus.And without the United States to maintain such a position has become impossible, but this “objectivity” does not deny the contradictory U.S. policy in the region. In this regard, virtually no one in the analytic community is not considered the prospect of military and geo-economic presence of the United States and Britain in the South Caucasus. Could this present time restricted to the depletion of oil reserves and other resources, or it could be connected with a “clean” Geopolitics? It seems that oil companies are represented in the Caspian basin, especially in Azerbaijan, trying to force the extraction of oil contract, or the overwhelming part of a decade or a little more. How safe will the region after the exhaustion of oil reserves here, loss of interest in him when geo as ekonomizirovannaya doctrine of geopolitics, will give way to this very “clean” geopolitics? How comfortable would feel like NATO in the region in this case?
NATO is a rather controversial conglomerate, which includes very different cultures, motivations, interests and mentality. Russia can not prevent the expansion of NATO, the more that part, and the Europeans are interested in this. But Russia has many opportunities to develop relations with NATO, which will lead to depoliticize the Alliance, to form vnutriblokovyh groupings of States, which will have to distance themselves from “common” policies block. It is possible that soon it will be possible to talk about the creation of new, local alliances with Russia and some NATO countries. Regulation of data bundles “may be quite different, depending on the performance of certain tasks in a safe. Why, for example, or come to some agreement of Russia and European forces. This much has been said in the initial period of formation Evrosil, but then it was thoroughly forgotten. Typically, the NATO crisis due to loss of the enemy, but it is not so – the split and the crisis of NATO was detected at all stages of the Alliance.
NATO is currently inept organization, it needs to transform the ideology of security, which, despite the debate, and has not been formed. The notorious “battle of civilizations,” if it began, then, first of all, in the framework of NATO. But we must understand that NATO is the only global organization that can contain the most dangerous challenges. And it’s her role will be carried out until a new system of security. Russia’s role could be significant in supporting the various interests within the alliance. Other ways to reduce or even eliminate confrontation there. Then came the period of a complete rethinking of Russian politicians and political analysts directions of cooperation with NATO members and directly with the alliance. This process has apparently begun, but not be allowed to prevent it. The fact that Russia intended to save from collapse of the global system of the Western world there is no paradox.