U.S. Diplomats See Russia as Threat

It should be an opening to a new chapter in the difficult relations with Russia, nothing less than the end of the Cold War. “The NATO nations and Russia have today agreed in writing that while we face many security challenges, we pose no threat to each other,” said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen solemnly in November 2010, as Russia and NATO presented themselves as friends.

U.S. President Barack Obama cited the promise as a new start in the relationship. Europe celebrated that Russia and NATO together opposed the American missile defense system and instead decided on closer military cooperation.

That is what it looked like, at least, from the outside. Dozens of American documents, meeting minutes and cables from NATO headquarters in Brussels show a very different picture of the relationship between Russia and NATO.

U.S. diplomats continue to define Russia as a potential threat, although NATO consistently argues the opposite. The threat encompasses practically all sensible categories, from espionage to the pure potential of Russia’s military, chemical hazards and biological and nuclear weapons.

Biological Weapons Program “Probably Aligned Offensively”

Obviously, the Americans rate the one-time opposition of the Cold War more critically than their European allies. Seven years earlier, as the U.S. laid a plan for a missile defense system, it was met with strong resistance by its allies. Thereupon, the alliance agreed to submit a full risk analysis, with which the threat to the member countries from ballistic missiles could be determined.

The report was 180 pages long, remained under wraps, and has never been publicized. But it was important groundwork for the NATO treaty on missile defense.

The then-U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns cabled part of his analysis to the U.S. State Department in January 2005. Besides references to the known “rogue states” of Iran, North Korea and Syria, Burns focused on the specific hazards that could come out of Russia.

The Russians allegedly had “no intention to lead a military operation against a member nation.” At the same time, they bear “a modern arsenal of ballistic missiles, which” can reach “with nuclear warheads the entire NATO territory.”

Russia’s biological weapons program is “probably more offensively” aligned. Moscow could also develop tailor-made chemical weapons, which could overwhelm the defense system. Such weapons are prohibited by international agreements. Burns’ conclusion: NATO must continue to be on guard “before the potential threat from Russia.”

Threat Through Espionage

The minutes from the secret meeting of the NATO Council, the highest committee of the alliance, also shows that in 2010 Russia posed the largest espionage threat to NATO — even though on the outside, NATO stresses that it would like to step up cooperation. Two of the 12 espionage incidents in the past year were Russian spies acting directly against NATO.

So much of Russia’s military’s foreign intelligence directorate (GRU) and the Federal Security Service (FSB) work specifically to steal high technology. According to embassy documents, they do this under the cover of international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and crime.

Alone in the political section of the Russian embassy, they work to watch and observe the 27 American diplomats, more so than in the branches of every other NATO member country, including the U.S. Many of the workers have “seemingly dark portfolios,” states the cable.

NATO is split about the threat from the Russian bear. The mistrust of Moscow adheres persistently in the satellite states, who joined NATO after the fall of Communism. The Georgian War in 2008 strengthened this discomfort. Countries like Germany and Norway seek to downplay the danger.

“Lasting Security Risk”

That is why it appears that the reservations of the new members are not totally ungrounded. On the edge of a conference of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership, to which 50 states from East and West belong, a Russian diplomat openly threatened his Georgian colleague.

Victor Kochkov is purported to have said to one of the Georgian representatives, “You should think it over. You should think over giving a statement, young man. Think about your home. We won’t allow it. Pay attention. We won’t allow it.”

There were many witnesses to this scene, which appears to come out of a second-rate Mafia film. The Americans commented on the instance with the assessment that the “imperialism of the Cold War appears to have backed its way into Russian diplomacy.”

Moscow’s clear message especially unsettles the states with a land border with Russia. They ask for a security guarantee in the form of a defense plan. Such a plan aligns with the NATO statute Article 5, so the Alliance can follow it in the case of war: Every aggression against a member country will be seen as aggression against the entire alliance.

In a cable about the defense plans of the Baltic states, acting U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder writes that the Baltic heads of government should strongly demand such an Article 5 plan. President Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton support the new NATO states. “The Baltic States make it very clear that Russia still poses a security risk and wishes for a defense plan, in order to fight this threat,” writes Daalder.

He also pointed to a difficulty: It could become problematic. NATO would unite behind such a defense plan, especially “if it is assumed that Russia is a potential threat.” That would hardly be tolerated by public statements, after such statements that NATO and Russia would no longer be opponents. Daalder adds that the NATO Secretary General made informal plans for the Baltic states directly after the Georgian War began in 2008.

“Openness Is the Tool of the Weak”

The public and the actual assessments of NATO show themselves in the differences of the Council’s opinions in 2008 and 2009, as Russia submitted a suggestion for a Security Agreement for Europe. Officially, NATO showed itself in favor of the agreement, and Clinton often repeated that it is an “interesting offer” that one could discuss. But behind closed doors, NATO reacts to the suggestion with disbelief, and with laughter.

The Russian plan calls for NATO to not be required to deploy troops to certain military areas in the new NATO states. “That is the dumbest suggestion that has ever been made,” said Christoph Heusgen, German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s security advisor, in July 2009 talks with U.S. diplomats, after he had read in the paper the remarks by Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Heusgen said he laughed as he read the Russian suggestion about the “importance of respecting territorial integrity,“ which Medvedev presented a few months after the Georgian War. Daalder summarily tore up the offer. The treaty would have created such a “weak NATO,” he cabled Washington. “Russia likes to hope that with the suggestion, they can plant seeds of divisiveness, then question the unity of the alliance,” Daalder said further.

On several occasions, the NATO diplomats attempted to discuss the Russian threat with the Russians themselves. During a lunch with Moscow representatives in January 2009, the U.S. ambassadors suggested that the Russians show more openness in their attention, and a clear announcement was given to the deputy head of the Russian Delegation, Nikolai Korchunov. “Openness is the tool of the weak, “ he answered assuredly and referred to the States as “cropping up like babies” fearing Russia.

After all, Korchunov admitted, the U.S. and Russia need to understand one another. But this understanding must not affect the relationship with other allies, Korchunov added.