NATO - Topic - NATO-Russia Relations - The Facts

08/07/2016
NATOTopic:NATORussiarelations:thefacts
NATO-Russia relations: the facts

Last updated: 17 Dec. 2015 10:33
Since Russia began its illegal military intervention in Ukraine, Russian ocials
have accused NATO of a series of mythical provocations, threats and hostile
actions stretching back over 25 years. This webpage sets out the facts.
Myths
NATO enlargement
Claim: NATO's Open Door policy creates new dividing lines in Europe and deepens
existing ones
Claim: NATO invitation to Montenegro to start accession talks meets opposition in
the country and is destabilizing
Claim: NATO enlargement in the Balkans is destabilizing
Claim: NATO tried to "drag" Ukraine into the Alliance
Claim: Russia has the right to demand a "100% guarantee" that Ukraine will not join
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm?
1/17
08/07/2016
NATO
Claim: NATO provoked the "Maidan" protests in Ukraine
Claim: NATO was planning to base ships and missiles in Crimea
Claim: NATO intends to set up a military base in Georgia
Claim: NATO has bases all around the world
NATO and its attitude to Russia
Claim: NATO is trying to encircle Russia
Claim: NATO has a Cold War mentality
Claim: NATO is a U.S. geopolitical project
Claim: NATO's purpose is to contain or weaken Russia
Claim: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia
Claim: NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War
Claim: NATO enlargement followed the same process as the expansion of the USSR
and the Warsaw Pact
NATO as a "threat"
Claim: NATO is a threat to Russia
Claim: NATO missile defence targets Russia and the Iran agreement proves it
Claim: The accession of new Allies to NATO threatens Russia
Claim: NATO exercises are a provocation which threatens Russia
Promises and pledges
Claim: Russia has the right to oppose NATO-supported infrastructure on the territory
of member states in Central and Eastern Europe
Claim: NATO's response to Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine violates the Founding Act
Claim: NATO nuclear arrangements violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Claim: NATO nuclear exercises violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Claim: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunication that the Alliance
would not expand to the East
NATO's operations
Claim: NATO's operation in Afghanistan was a failure
Claim: The NATO-led mission in Afghanistan failed to stop the Afghan drugs trade
Claim: NATO's operation over Libya was illegitimate
Claim: NATO's operation over Kosovo was illegitimate
Claim: The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical
Claim: Russia's annexation of Crimea was justied by the opinion of the International
Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo
Claim: The Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate
NATO enlargement
Claim: NATO's Open Door policy creates new dividing lines in Europe and deepens
existing ones
2/17
08/07/2016
Fact: NATO's Open Door policy has helped close Cold War-era divisions in Europe. NATO
enlargement has contributed to spreading democracy, security and stability further across
Europe.
By choosing to adopt the standards and principles of NATO, aspirant countries gave their
democracies the strongest possible anchor. And by taking the pledge to defend NATO, they
received the pledge that NATO would protect them.
NATO membership is not imposed on countries. Each sovereign country has the right to choose
for itself whether it joins any treaty or alliance.
This fundamental principle is enshrined in international agreements including the Helsinki Final
Act which says that every state has the right "to belong or not to belong to international
organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right to
be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance." And by signing the NATO-Russia Founding Act,
Russia agreed to respect states' "inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own
security."
Over the past 65 years, 28 countries have chosen freely, and in accordance with their domestic
democratic processes, to join NATO. Not one has asked to leave. This is their sovereign choice.
Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specically gives Allies the right to leave should they wish to.
Back to top
Claim: NATO invitation to Montenegro to start accession talks meets opposition in

the country and is destabilizing
Fact: In December 2015 NATO Foreign Ministers invited Montenegro to begin accession talks to
join the Alliance. This was a historic achievement, which will strengthen the security of
Montenegro, the Western Balkans, and NATO.
Nobody forces a nation to join NATO. Membership is a national decision and free choice for
sovereign countries. Candidate countries need to apply. And as always, all NATO members need
to agree to it.
The question of NATO membership is an issue for Montenegro and for Montenegrins
themselves. This principle also applies to national (country-specic) procedures for approving
accession decisions. It is not a party political issue. It is a question of national interest.
Each country has a sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. No third country
has a right to interfere on the issue of NATO membership.
To join the Alliance nations are expected to respect the values of NATO and to meet demanding
political, economic and military criteria.
Countries which joined the Alliance have been able to strengthen their democracy, boost their
3/17
08/07/2016
security and make their citizens safer. Enlargement has fostered stability and security in Europe
and it has brought closer a Europe that is whole, free and at peace.
Back to top
Claim: NATO enlargement in the Balkans is destabilizing
Fact: All the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which have joined NATO over the past
decade have enjoyed peace, security and cooperation with their neighbours since then.
The countries in the region which aspire to membership are conducting reforms to bring
themselves closer to NATO standards. These reforms enhance democracy and security in each
country.
The countries in the region have played a signicant role in NATO's operations in Afghanistan
and Kosovo, providing training to the Afghan forces and helping to provide a safe and secure
environment for all people in Kosovo. This is a direct contribution to stability in the broader
Euro-Atlantic area.
Back to top
Claim: NATO tried to "drag" Ukraine into the Alliance
Fact: When the administrations of President Kuchma and President Yushchenko made clear
their aspiration to NATO membership, the Alliance worked with them to encourage the reforms
which would be needed to make that aspiration a reality.
When the administration of President Yanukovych opted for a non-bloc status, NATO respected
that decision and continued to work with Ukraine on reforms, at the government's request.
NATO respects the right of every country to choose its own security arrangements. In fact,
Article 13 of the Washington Treaty specically gives Allies the right to leave.
Over the past 65 years, 28 countries have chosen freely, and in accordance with their domestic
democratic processes, to join NATO. Not one has asked to leave. This is their sovereign choice.
Back to top
Claim: Russia has the right to demand a "100% guarantee" that Ukraine will not join
NATO
Fact: According to Article I of the Helsinki Final Act (here) which established the Organisation for
4/17
08/07/2016
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1975, every country has the right "to belong or not
to belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a party to bilateral or multilateral treaties
including the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance." All the OSCE member states,
including Russia, have sworn to uphold those principles.
In line with those principles, Ukraine has the right to choose for itself whether it joins any treaty
of alliance, including NATO's founding treaty.
Moreover, when Russia signed the Founding Act, it pledged to uphold "respect for sovereignty,
independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to
ensure their own security".
Thus Ukraine has the right to choose its own alliances, and Russia has, by its own repeated
agreement, no right to dictate that choice.
Back to top
Claim: NATO provoked the "Maidan" protests in Ukraine
Fact: The demonstrations which began in Kiev in November 2013 were born out of Ukrainians'
desire for a closer relationship with the European Union, and their frustration when former
President Yanukovych halted progress toward that goal as a result of Russian pressure.
The protesters' demands included constitutional reform, a stronger role for the parliament, the
formation of a government of national unity, an end to the pervasive and endemic corruption,
early presidential elections and an end to violence. There was no mention of NATO.
Ukraine began discussing the idea of abandoning its non-bloc status in September 2014, six
months after the illegal and illegitimate Russian "annexation" of Crimea and the start of Russia's
aggressive actions in Eastern Ukraine. The nal decision by Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada to
abandon the non bloc status was taken in December 2014, over a year after the pro-EU
demonstrations began.
Back to top
Claim: NATO was planning to base ships and missiles in Crimea
Fact: This is ction. The idea has never been proposed, suggested or discussed within NATO.
Back to top
Claim: NATO intends to set up a military base in Georgia
5/17
08/07/2016
Fact: NATO agreed at the Wales Summit to oer Georgia a substantial package of assistance to
strengthen Georgia's defence and interoperability capabilities with the Alliance. As agreed with
Georgia, a training facility will be set up in Georgia to contribute to the training and
interoperability of Georgian and Alliance personnel.
This is a training centre, not a military base.
This initiative will result in closer cooperation with Georgia's sovereign and internationallyrecognised government, and improved training and democratic control for its armed forces. As
such, it will contribute to stability by making Georgia's armed forces more professional, and by
reinforcing the democratic controls over them.
Back to top
Claim: NATO has bases all around the world
Fact: NATO's military infrastructure outside the territory of Allies is limited to those areas in
which the Alliance is conducting operations.
Thus the Alliance has military facilities in Afghanistan for the support of the Resolute Support
mission, and in Kosovo for the KFOR mission.
NATO has civilian liaison oces in partner countries such as Georgia, Ukraine and Russia. These
cannot be considered as "military bases".
Individual Allies have overseas bases on the basis of bilateral agreements and the principle of
host-nation consent, in contrast with Russian bases on the territory of Moldova (Transnistria),
Ukraine (the Autonomous Republic of Crimea) and Georgia (the regions of Abkhazia and South
Ossetia).
Back to top
NATO and its attitude to Russia
Claim: NATO is trying to encircle Russia
Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia's land border is just over 20,000
kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO
members.
Russia shares land borders with 14 countries (Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea). Only
ve of them are NATO members.
Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory
of NATO nations, NATO only maintains a signicant military presence in three places: Kosovo,
6/17
08/07/2016
Afghanistan, and at sea o the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United
Nations mandate, and thus carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council
members. Before Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical
support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation,
showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benet, not a threat.
With respect to the permanent stationing of U.S. and other Allied forces on the territory of other
Allies in Europe, NATO has full abided by the commitments made in the NATO-Russia Founding
Act. There has been no permanent stationing of additional combat forces on the territory of
other allies; and total force levels have, in fact, been substantially reduced since the end of the
Cold War
NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia, as can be seen
from this interactive map. Such partnerships, which are requested by the partners in question,
focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster preparedness and relief,
transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot
legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an
attempt at encirclement.
Back to top
Claim: NATO has a Cold War mentality
Fact: The Cold War ended over 20 years ago. It was characterized by the opposition of two
ideological blocs, the presence of massive standing armies in Europe, and the military, political
and economic domination by the Soviet Union of almost all its European neighbours.
The end of the Cold War was a victory for the people of Central and Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union, and opened the way to overcoming the division of Europe. At pathbreaking
Summit meetings in the years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia played its part in building a
new, inclusive European security architecture, including the Charter of Paris, the establishment
of the OSCE, the creation of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and the NATO-Russia
Founding Act.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has introduced sweeping changes to its membership and
working practices changes made clear by its adoption of new Strategic Concepts in 1999 and
2010. Accusations that NATO has retained its Cold War purpose ignore the reality of those
changes.
Over the same period, NATO reached out to Russia with a series of partnership initiatives,
culminating in the foundation of the NATO-Russia Council in 2002. No other country has such a
privileged relationship with NATO.
As stated by NATO heads of state and government at the Wales Summit in September 2014, "the
Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia. But we cannot and will not
compromise on the principles on which our Alliance and security in Europe and North America rest."
(The Wales Summit Declaration can be read here).
7/17
08/07/2016
This is NATO's ocial policy, dened and expressed transparently by its highest level of
leadership. As an organisation which is accountable to its member nations, NATO is bound to
implement this policy.
Back to top
Claim: NATO is a U.S. geopolitical project
Fact: NATO was founded in 1949 by twelve sovereign nations: Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and
the United States. It has since grown to 28 Allies who each took an individual and sovereign
decision to join this Alliance.
All decisions in NATO are taken by consensus, which means that a decision can only be taken if
every single Ally accepts it.
Equally, the decision for any country to take part in NATO-led operations falls to that country
alone, according to its own legal procedures. No member of the Alliance can decide on the
deployment of any other Ally's forces.
Back to top
Claim: NATO's purpose is to contain or weaken Russia
Fact: NATO's purpose is set out in the preamble to the Washington Treaty, the Alliance's
Founding document (online here ).
This states that Allies are determined "to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation
of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They
seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their
eorts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security."
In line with those goals, in the past two decades NATO has led missions in the Balkans,
Afghanistan, over Libya and o the Horn of Africa. The Alliance has conducted exercises from
the Mediterranean to the North Atlantic and across Europe, and on issues ranging from counterterrorism to submarine rescue - including with Russia itself.
None of these activities can credibly be presented as directed against Russia.
Back to top
Claim: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia
8/17
08/07/2016
Fact: Since the early 1990s, the Alliance has consistently worked to build a cooperative
relationship with Russia on areas of mutual interest.
NATO began reaching out, oering dialogue in place of confrontation, at the London NATO
Summit of July 1990 (declaration here). In the following years, the Alliance promoted dialogue
and cooperation by creating new fora, the Partnership for Peace (PfP) and the Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council (EAPC), open to the whole of Europe, including Russia (PfP founding
documents here and here).
After the conclusion of the Dayton Accords in 1995, Russian forces participated in the NATO-led
operations to implement the peace agreement (IFOR and SFOR) and in the NATO-led operation
to implement the peace in Kosovo (KFOR), under UN Security Council mandates.
In 1997 NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and
Security, creating the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. In 2002 they upgraded that
relationship, creating the NATO-Russia Council (NRC). They rearmed their commitment to the
Founding Act at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002 and in Lisbon in 2010 (The Founding Act
can be read here, the Rome Declaration which established the NRC here, the Lisbon NRC
Summit Declaration here.)
Since the foundation of the NRC, NATO and Russia have worked together on issues ranging
from counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism to submarine rescue and civil emergency
planning. We set out to build a unique relationship with Russia, one built not just on mutual
interests but also on cooperation and the shared objective for a Europe whole free and at
peace. No other partner has been oered a comparable relationship, nor a similar
comprehensive institutional framework.
Back to top
Claim: NATO should have been disbanded at the end of the Cold War
Fact: At the London Summit in 1990, Allied heads of state and government agreed that ""We
need to keep standing together, to extend the long peace we have enjoyed these past four decades".
This was their sovereign choice and was fully in line with their right to collective defence under
the United Nations Charter.
Since then, twelve more countries have chosen to join NATO. The Alliance has taken on new
missions and adapted to new challenges, all the while sticking to its fundamental principles of
security, collective defence, and decision-making by consensus.
Twice since the end of the Cold War, NATO has adopted new Strategic Concepts (in 1999 and
2010), adapting to new realities. Thus, rather than being disbanded, NATO adapted, and
continues to change, to live up to the needs and expectations of Allies, and to promote their
shared vision of a Europe whole, free and at peace.
Back to top
9/17
08/07/2016
Claim: NATO enlargement followed the same process as the expansion of the USSR
and the Warsaw Pact
Fact: Any comparison between NATO enlargement after the end of the Cold War and the
creation of the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet bloc at the end of World War II is an utter distortion of
history.
The incorporation of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the Soviet Union and the
Warsaw Pact after the Second World War was carried out under conditions of military
occupation, one-party dictatorship and the violent suppression of dissent.
When the countries of Central and Eastern Europe applied for NATO membership after the
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, it was of their own free choice, through their own national
democratic processes, and after conducting the required reforms.
This was done through debate, in peacetime conditions, and in a transparent way.
Back to top
NATO as a "threat"
Claim: NATO is a threat to Russia
Fact: NATO has reached out to Russia consistently, transparently and publicly over the past 25
years.
The Alliance has created unique cooperation bodies the Permanent Joint Council and the
NATO-Russia Council to embody its relationship with Russia. It has invited Russia to cooperate
on missile defence, an invitation extended to no other partner.
In the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, agreed with Russia in 1997
and rearmed at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002 and in Lisbon in 2010, NATO stated
that "in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective
defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for
reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces". The
Alliance has fullled all such commitments.
NATO's ocial policy towards Russia was most recently articulated by the heads of state and
government of the Alliance at the Wales Summit in September 2014.
They stated that "the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia. But we
cannot and will not compromise on the principles on which our Alliance and security in Europe and
North America rest." (The Wales Summit Declaration can be read here).
Thus, neither the Alliance's policies nor its actions are a threat to Russia.
10/17
08/07/2016
Back to top
Claim: NATO missile defence targets Russia and the Iran agreement proves it
Fact: NATO's missile defence system is not designed or directed against Russia. It does not pose
a threat to Russia's strategic deterrent.
As already explained by NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow, geography and
physics make it impossible for the NATO system to shoot down Russian intercontinental missiles
from NATO sites in Romania or Poland. Their capabilities are too limited, their planned numbers
too few, and their locations too far south or too close to Russia to do so.
Russian ocials have conrmed that the planned NATO shield will not, in fact, undermine
Russia's deterrent. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's missile defence envoy, said
on January 26, 2015, that "neither the current, nor even the projected" missile defence system
"could stop or cast doubt on Russia's strategic missile potential."
Finally, the Russian claim that the framework agreement on Iran's nuclear programme obviates
the need for NATO missile defence is wrong on two counts.
The Iranian agreement does not cover the proliferation of ballistic-missile technology which is
an issue completely dierent from nuclear questions.
Furthermore, NATO has repeatedly made clear that missile defence is not about any one
country, but about the threat posed by proliferation more generally. In fact, over 30 countries
have obtained, or are trying to obtain, ballistic missile technology. The Iran framework
agreement does not change those facts.
Back to top
Claim: The accession of new Allies to NATO threatens Russia
Fact: Every country which joins NATO undertakes to uphold the principles and policies of the
Alliance, and the commitments which NATO has already made.
This includes the commitment that NATO poses no threat to Russia, as most recently stated at
the Wales Summit.
Therefore, as the number of countries which join NATO grows, so does the number of countries
which agree that "the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia."
Back to top
Claim: NATO exercises are a provocation which threatens Russia

11/17
08/07/2016
Fact: Every nation has the right to conduct exercises, as long as they do so within their
international obligations, including notifying the actual numbers and providing observation
opportunities when required.
In order to promote mutual trust and transparency, OSCE members are bound by the Vienna
Document to inform one another in advance of exercises which include more than 9,000 troops,
unless the exercises are snap tests of readiness.
NATO and Allies have consistently stood by the terms and the spirit of the Vienna Document.
Those exercises which crossed the notication threshold were announced well in advance. This
is why Russia could send observers to the UK-led Exercise Joint Warrior in April 2015.
Russia, on the other hand, has repeatedly called snap exercises including tens of thousands of
troops, with some of them taking place close to NATO territory. This practice of calling massive
exercises without warning is a breach of the spirit of the Vienna Document, raising tension and
undermining trust. This is especially the case because Russia's military takeover of Crimea was
masked by exactly such a snap exercise.
It is therefore Russia's exercises, not NATO's, which are a threat to stability.
Back to top
Promises and pledges
Claim: Russia has the right to oppose NATO-supported infrastructure on the
territory of member states in Central and Eastern Europe
Fact: The relationship between NATO and Russia is governed by the Founding Act on Mutual
Relations, Cooperation and Security, agreed by NATO Allies and Russia in 1997 and rearmed at
NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002, and in Lisbon in 2010. (The Founding Act can be read
here.)
In the Founding Act, the two sides agreed that: "in the current and foreseeable security
environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the
necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional
permanent stationing of substantial combat forces. Accordingly, it will have to rely on adequate
infrastructure commensurate with the above tasks. In this context, reinforcement may take place,
when necessary, in the event of defence against a threat of aggression and missions in support of
peace consistent with the United Nations Charter and the OSCE governing principles, as well as for
exercises consistent with the adapted CFE Treaty, the provisions of the Vienna Document 1994 and
mutually agreed transparency measures. Russia will exercise similar restraint in its conventional force
deployments in Europe."
Therefore, both infrastructure and reinforcements are explicitly permitted by the Founding Act
and therefore by Russia.
12/17
08/07/2016
Back to top
Claim: NATO's response to Russia's illegal actions in Ukraine violates the Founding
Act
Fact: NATO has responded to the new strategic reality caused by Russia's illegitimate and illegal
actions in Ukraine by reinforcing the defence of Allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and by
ensuring the ability to increase those reinforcements if necessary, including by upgrading
infrastructure.
All this is consistent with the Founding Act, quoted above.
In the Founding Act, all signatories, including Russia, agreed on principles which include
"refraining from the threat or use of force against each other as well as against any other state, its
sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence in any manner inconsistent with the United
Nations Charter and with the Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations Between Participating States
contained in the Helsinki Final Act" and the "respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial
integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the
inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act
and other OSCE documents."
NATO has respected those commitments faithfully. Russia, on the other hand, has declared the
annexation of Crimea, supported violent separatists in the east of the country, and insisted that
Ukraine be barred from joining NATO.
Back to top
Claim: NATO nuclear arrangements violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Fact: The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear
disarmament. At the Wales Summit in September 2014, all Allies rearmed their full support for
the treaty.
The deployment of American nuclear weapons on the territories of NATO allies is fully
consistent with the NPT. These weapons remain under the custody and control of the United
States at all times.
Furthermore, NATO's nuclear arrangements are older than the NPT, and this issue was fully
addressed when the treaty was negotiated. The arrangements were made clear to delegations
and were made public.
Back to top
13/17
08/07/2016
Claim: NATO nuclear exercises violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Fact: At the Wales Summit in September 2014, Allies rearmed their full support for the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT). NATO's nuclear posture is fully consistent with the treaty.
At no point has NATO moved nuclear weapons to Eastern Europe. There have been no NATO
nuclear exercises in the eastern part of the Alliance since the end of the Cold War.
It is Russia that has started to use its nuclear weapons as a tool in its strategy of intimidation.
Russia has increased nuclear rhetoric and stepped up its nuclear exercises. Russian nuclearcapable bombers are ying close to Alliance borders. Russia has also threatened to base
nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad and Crimea.
This activity and this rhetoric do not contribute to transparency and predictability, particularly in
the context of a changed security environment due to Russia's aggressive actions in Ukraine.
Back to top
Claim: NATO leaders promised at the time of German reunication that the Alliance
would not expand to the East
Fact: No such promise was ever made, and Russia has never produced any evidence to back up
its claim.
Every formal decision which NATO takes is adopted by consensus and recorded in writing. There
is no written record of any such decision having been taken by the Alliance: therefore, no such
promise can have been made.
Moreover, at the time of the alleged promise, the Warsaw Pact still existed. Its members did not
agree on its dissolution until 1991. Therefore, it is not plausible to suggest that the idea of their
accession to NATO was on the agenda in 1989.
This was conrmed by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev himself. This is what Mr
Gorbachev said on 15 October 2014 in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta and Russia Beyond
The Headlines:
"The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say
this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the
Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either."
Back to top
NATO's operations
Claim: NATO's operation in Afghanistan was a failure
14/17
08/07/2016
Fact: NATO took over the command of the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force
in Afghanistan in 2003.
Under NATO's command, the mission progressively extended throughout Afghanistan, was
joined by 22 non-NATO countries and built up from scratch an Afghan National Security Force of
more than 350,000 soldiers and police.
Threats to Afghanistan's security continue. However, the Afghan forces are now ready to take
full responsibility for security across the country, as agreed with the Afghan authorities.
NATO is providing training, advice and assistance to the Afghan forces through the "Resolute
Support" mission.
Back to top
Claim: The NATO-led mission in Afghanistan failed to stop the Afghan drugs trade
Fact: As with any sovereign country, the primary responsibility for upholding law and order in
Afghanistan, including as regards the trade in narcotics, rests with the Afghan government.
The international community is supporting the Afghan government to live up to this
responsibility in many ways, including both through the United Nations and through the
European Union.
NATO is not a main actor in this area. This role has been agreed with the international
community.
Back to top
Claim: NATO's operation over Libya was illegitimate
The NATO-led operation was launched under the authority of two UN Security Council
Resolutions (UNSCR), 1970 and 1973, both quoting Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and neither of
which was opposed by Russia.
UNSCR 1973 authorized the international community "to take all necessary measures" to "protect
civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack". This is what NATO did, with the
political and military support of regional states and members of the Arab League.
After the conict, NATO cooperated with the UN International Commission of Inquiry on Libya,
which found no breach of UNSCR 1973 or international law, concluding instead that "NATO
conducted a highly precise campaign with a demonstrable determination to avoid civilian casualties."
15/17
08/07/2016
Back to top
Claim: NATO's operation over Kosovo was illegitimate
Fact: The NATO operation for Kosovo followed over a year of intense eorts by the UN and the
Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to bring about a peaceful solution. The UN
Security Council on several occasions branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting
number of refugees driven from their homes as a threat to international peace and security.
NATO's Operation Allied Force was launched to prevent the large-scale and sustained violations
of human rights and the killing of civilians.
Following the air campaign, the subsequent NATO-led peacekeeping operation, KFOR, which
initially included Russia, has been under UN mandate (UNSCR 1244), with the aim of providing a
safe and secure environment in Kosovo.
Back to top
Claim: The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical
Fact: The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole
international community dealing with a long-running crisis that was recognized by the UN
Security Council as a threat to international peace and security.
Following the operation, the international community engaged in nearly ten years of diplomacy,
under UN authority, to nd a political solution and to settle Kosovo's nal status, as prescribed
by UNSCR 1244.
In Crimea, there was no pre-existing crisis, no attempt to discuss the situation with the
Ukrainian government, no involvement of the United Nations, and no attempt at a negotiated
solution.
In Kosovo, international attempts to nd a solution took over 3,000 days. In Crimea, Russia
annexed part of Ukraine's territory in less than 30 days. It has sought to justify its illegal and
illegitimate annexation, in part, by pointing to a "referendum" that was inconsistent with
Ukrainian law, held under conditions of illegal armed occupation with no freedom of expression
or media access for the opposition, and without any credible international monitoring.
Back to top
Claim: Russia's annexation of Crimea was justied by the opinion of the

International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo (online here).
16/17
08/07/2016
Fact: The court stated that their opinion was not a precedent. The court said they had been
given a "narrow and specic" question about Kosovo's independence which would not cover the
broader legal consequences of that decision.
Back to top
Claim: The Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate
Fact: Ukraine's President Poroshenko was elected on 25 May with a clear majority in a vote
which the OSCE characterized (report here) as showing the "clear resolve of the authorities to hold
what was a genuine election largely in line with international commitments and with a respect for
fundamental freedoms." The only areas where serious restrictions were reported were those
controlled by separatists, who undertook "increasing attempts to derail the process."
The current parliament was elected on 26 October in a vote which the OSCE characterized
(report here) as "an amply contested election that oered voters real choice, and a general respect
for fundamental freedoms". It again pointed out that "Electoral authorities made resolute eorts to
organize elections throughout the country, but they could not be held in parts of the regions (oblasts)
of Donetsk and Luhansk or on the Crimean peninsula".
Finally, Russian ocials continue to allege that the Ukrainian parliament and government are
dominated by "Nazis" and "fascists." However, in the parliamentary elections, the parties whom
Russia labelled as "fascists" fell far short of the threshold of 5% needed to enter parliament.
Ukraine's electorate clearly voted for unity and moderation, not separatism or extremism, and
the composition of the parliament reects that.
In short, the President and parliament are legitimate, the actions of the separatists were not.
Back to top
17/17

NATO - Topic - NATO-Russia Relations - The Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATO - Topic - NATO-Russia Relations - The Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

08/07/2016

NATO-Russia relations: the facts

Claim: NATO invitation to Montenegro to start accession talks meets opposition in

Claim: NATO enlargement in the Balkans is destabilizing

Claim: NATO tried to "drag" Ukraine into the Alliance

Claim: NATO provoked the "Maidan" protests in Ukraine

Claim: NATO was planning to base ships and missiles in Crimea

Claim: NATO intends to set up a military base in Georgia

Claim: NATO has bases all around the world

Claim: NATO has a Cold War mentality

Claim: NATO is a U.S. geopolitical project

Claim: NATO's purpose is to contain or weaken Russia

Claim: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalise Russia

Claim: The accession of new Allies to NATO threatens Russia

Claim: NATO exercises are a provocation which threatens Russia

Claim: NATO nuclear arrangements violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty

Claim: NATO nuclear exercises violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty

Claim: NATO's operation over Libya was illegitimate

Claim: NATO's operation over Kosovo was illegitimate

Claim: The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical

Claim: Russia's annexation of Crimea was justied by the opinion of the

Claim: The Ukrainian authorities are illegitimate

You might also like