You are here:   Counterpoints > Putin's playthings

Jens Stoltenberg: Could have been tougher on Russia (Annika Haas (EU2017EE) CC BY-2.0)

Theresa May appeared to achieve her first foreign policy success on March 22 at the EU summit in Brussels. She managed to persuade her fellow members to harden their initial position on the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, issuing a joint statement that the only plausible explanation was Russian responsibility. May's limited victory underscores the precarious position that the UK will find itself in after Brexit. More importantly it also illustrates the degree to which the EU has become Europe's preferred form of defensive decision making when it comes to defence, much to Nato and the EU's detriment. The EU's decision to remove their ambassador to Russia is a surprisingly blunt measure limiting their diplomatic resources.

The week before, a joint statement by the UK, France, the US and Germany had been presented as a strong display of unity, despite its glaring omissions both in terms of content and signatories. The most important phrase was that it "threatens the security of us all". This recognition of collective defence should more appropriately have been expressed by Nato but the divide between Europe and the US, particularly on the issue of Russia, has opened a fissure in the alliance.

Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg's response was to express support for the UK, whilst stating that this was not grounds for invoking Nato's most serious clause, Article V, which would demand a response from all members. This was a diplomatic sleight of hand. Whilst he was correct that any response must be proportionate, there are steps short of Article V that Nato could have taken.

The response to what is merely the latest in a succession of "plausibly deniable" Russian military actions stretching from Crimea to Syria, should have been to invoke Nato's Article IV to "consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened."

This would have sent a strong message of unity and triggered a special session to speed up a co-ordinated Nato response. Indeed, Theresa May's carefully chosen language in her Parliamentary statement appeared to be intended to pave the way towards such international action in response to what she characterised as a state-directed attack on the UK.

View Full Article
Lawrence James
April 22nd, 2018
9:04 AM
This is thinly disguised Russophobia of Crimean war vintage; one looked in vain for some mention of the 'Russian bear'. Why should NATO concern itself with Russian policy towards the Ukraine, which is not a member ? Or why should it forbid Russia from asserting its control over the Crimea which has long been part of the Russian polity ? Like every power Russia has spheres of influence: The US would be affronted by Russian interference in the Caribbean, or by the defection of Puerto Rico. NATO should accept the status quo in areas where, historically, Russian claims vital interests. On one level meddling is dangerous and, on another, it looks like NATO justifying its existence. As for the attempted assassination in Salisbury, many details remain unclear.The city should not become the Sarajevo of the 21st century.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.