Russia's worries

Russia's response to the Western encroachment of its traditional areas of influence has been polite, but it may not be wise for the West to take the Kremlin for granted indefinitely.

IS Russia in the process of getting encircled, perhaps hemmed in? Today Russia finds itself in a rather peculiar spot. The fast-paced diplomatic developments of November indicated a steady encroachment on the historical influence of Russia on its former satellites.

In the recently concluded North Atlantic Treaty organisation (NATO) summit in Prague, the organisation seems to have launched a "big bang" expansion that will see seven countries join the alliance in the next couple of years. Interestingly, all these countries formerly fell under the Soviet sphere of influence. They include three ex-Soviet Baltic states Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and four others from what was once the erstwhile Eastern Bloc - Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia. Preceding the Prague summit, the European Union (E.U.) met in Brussels to finalise plans for the absorption of several countries into the E.U., a number of them Baltic states that were Soviet satellites. The expansion of the E.U. is throwing up uncomfortable problems for Russia, such as the one concerning Kaliningrad. And even as the NATO and the E.U. expand into the Balkans and the Caucasus, Russia's admission into the E.U. or the NATO seems to have been conveniently sidestepped. At this juncture, it would be safe to reason that a daunting situation might be emerging for Russia, as it could be encircled by both an expansionist E.U. and a growing NATO.

On November 21, NATO leaders met in Prague to launch NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe. President George Bush listed the summit's main achievements as the expansion of NATO, the agreement to modernise military forces, the decision to build a 20,000-strong rapid response force, and the cohesive effort to work in harmony in order to meet the new threats of the 21st century. Bush informed a Lithuanian television channel that "the Baltic countries know what it means to live under fear and the lack of freedom and to have these countries allied with the United States and other nations is important to our soul. It's important to have the sense of freedom as a source of vigour and strength".

However, experts warn of major risks as NATO expands into former Soviet territory. In the case of the Baltic nations, despite their enthusiasm to join NATO, there is a growing consensus among experts that the military forces, civil infrastructure and even political cultures in these States are not yet evolved enough for the NATO. Meanwhile, reports indicate that NATO officials were announcing in Prague that with the expansion into the Baltic states, NATO's next frontier was going to be Central Asia and the Caucasus. With NATO expanding right up to Russia's borders, the situation would seem rather disturbing to the Kremlin. Yet the Kremlin's reaction seems to be very collected. President Vladimir Putin's calm has been unshakeable in the face of the twin expansion from the NATO and the E.U.

On the surface, Putin seems to be managing the problem as practically as possible. He has supported the U.S. led anti-terror coalition, cooperated with Bush in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, tried to forge a direct relationship with NATO and dropped the earlier Russian stance of hostility to the new relationship between the Baltic States and NATO. However, Moscow-based experts opine that there is growing unease in the Kremlin on this expansion into former Soviet turf. A visible sign of this discomfort was the fact that Putin did not attend the Prague summit. This was aimed to signal Russia's disapproval of NATO's expansion into Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. However, Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov represented Russia at the summit and welcomed NATO's new emphasis on combating terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Sensing Russia's unease, Bush made a quick dash to St. Petersburg on November 22 to reassure Putin that NATO's fresh expansion near Russia's western borders did not pose a threat to it and also to reiterate to Moscow that in the event of a war in Iraq, Russia's economic interests in that country would be protected. Bush declared before his departure to St. Petersburg: "I will tell my friend, Vladimir Putin, and the Russian people that they, too, will gain from the security and stability of nations to Russia's west." He added that "Russia does not require a buffer zone of protection, it needs peaceful and prosperous neighbours who are also friends." Reports indicate that the November 22 St. Petersburg trip was scheduled during Bush's phone call to Putin earlier this month, when Bush was seeking support from members of the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council for the U.S.-sponsored resolution on Iraq. White House officials indicated that Putin asked Bush to come to Russia after the NATO summit in Prague. The message was loud and clear - Russia wanted a reassurance on the NATO expansion. Apparently Bush accepted the offer without even consulting his staff.

In St. Petersburg, after private talks were held at Catherine's palace in Tsarskoye Selo, Putin reiterated Moscow's scepticism on NATO's eastern expansion. He stated: "We do not believe that this (expansion) has been necessitated by the existing facts, but we take note of the position taken by the U.S. President." Bush stressed time and again that Russia need not have any fears about the NATO expansion. Putin responded to Bush's statements before mediapersons in St. Petersburg by saying: "As regards our relations with NATO, let me say the following. As regards the expansion, you know our position well. We do not believe that this has been necessitated by the existing pact, but we take note of the position taken by the President of the United States and we hope to have positive development of our relations with all NATO countries. As regards our relationship with the alliance as a whole, as the alliance keeps transforming - and this is something that Mr. President talked about recently - we do not rule out the possibility of deepening our relations with the alliance. Of course, if the activities of the alliance are in accord with Russia's national security interests."

Despite favourable hints, there has been no actual move till date within the NATO to make Russia a member State. And despite reassurances from Bush, the Kremlin is uncomfortable about NATO's eastern expansion. This unease may grow as the expansion continues. The pertinent issue here is whether the West can take Russia for granted indefinitely. There can be no doubt that even though Russia has been weakened since its Soviet days, it is a country with a very definite mind of its own. On more than one occasion, the Kremlin has stood up to U.S. hegemony and a very recent example of this was the stand-off between the two countries on Iraq. Russia opposed the U.S.- sponsored motion in the U.N., favouring the use of force against Iraq. To a certain extent, this firm position taken by Putin helped transform the resolution tabled by the U.S. into its current, more moderate form.

DESPITE diplomatic niceties, it does look today as though the West is taking Russia for granted. Take the case of what happened at the E.U. summit in Brussels. If the NATO summit in Prague was disturbing for the Kremlin, the E.U. summit was downright annoying. The issue foremost on the Russian agenda for the summit was the Kaliningrad problem.

The enclave of Kaliningrad has been at the centre of a major row between Russia and the E.U. and has thrown their relationship off gear on more than one occasion. The enclave, though a part of Russia, is surrounded by Lithuania and Poland and is completely cut off from the Russian mainland. Russians have to travel through the neighbouring countries to reach Kaliningrad and vice-versa. Currently, an expansionist E.U. is absorbing several former Soviet states in the Balkans and its new members include Lithuania and Poland. Consequently, not only is Russia faced with an expanding E.U. moving closer to its borders but is also faced with the current prospect of E.U. States' cutting off Russia from Kaliningrad. So far there has been a deadlock, with Putin insisting that Russian citizens cannot go through the inconvenience of getting visas for merely moving from one part of their country to another.

The E.U., on the other hand, has been insistent that travel documents will be required for Russians travelling through the E.U. The Europeans have voiced concern that once Lithuania and Poland join the bloc in 2004, the Russian enclave will pose a serious danger to European security. This was an insinuation that Kaliningrad could be a source of crime, human trafficking, AIDS proliferation, and environmental pollution. Fears have been bandied about that Kaliningrad will become a "black hole" in Europe's midst and a source of illegal migration. Therefore, the E.U. has been pressing for the introduction of visas from 2003 for Russians travelling by land via Lithuania and Poland.

Diplomats from Russia and the E.U. have had considerable interaction over the past year to iron out the Kaliningrad problem. But, the E.U. has been unrelenting despite repeated Russian requests. Moscow's disappointment was worsened when the two parties met at Brussels with the Kremlin conceding to the E.U. proposal, which envisaged the introduction of special travel documents for Russian citizens travelling between the enclave and the Russian mainland. Finally, Moscow had to bow to E.U. pressure and concede that Russians will have to use Facilitated Travel Documents (FTDs). The joint Russia-E.U. statement says that "the European Union will introduce the necessary legislation to establish by July 1, 2003 a FTD scheme to apply for the transit of Russian citizens only between Kaliningrad and other parts of Russia by land."

Despite Putin backing down on Kaliningrad, the E.U. continues to play the "step mother" to Moscow. Political thinkers in Russia suggest that even as invitations are issued to hard-core ex-Soviet satellites in the Baltics to join the E.U., no concessions were coming Moscow's way. Today Russia seems to be in a strange situation, slowly getting ringed in by the E.U. and NATO and yet far from gaining membership of either grouping. Till date, Russia has demonstrated steadfast support to the West in its battle against terror. However, early signs of exhaution with what increasingly looks to be a one-way relationship is becoming apparent.

At the Bush-Putin interaction in St.Petersburg, Putin politely pointed out to Bush that the war on terror seemed to be dragging. This was made clear by U.S. government statements issued after the meeting in which Putin asserts, "Now, where has Osama bin Laden taken refuge? They say that somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We know what Musharraf is doing to achieve stability in his country and we are supporting him. But what can happen with armies armed with weapons that exist in Pakistan, including weapons of mass destruction? We are not sure on that aspect and we should not forget about that." Putin further reminded President Bush: "We should not give a chance to anyone who is either engaged in terror or who is supporting terror... We should not forget about those who finance terrorism. Of the 19 terrorists who committed the main attacks on September 11 against the United States, 16 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and we should not forget about that."

Putin seems to be sending politely a message out to the West, a message that seems to suggest that dramatics were all right but it was time that the West got its act together. Currently, Russia is patient but can it be taken for granted indefinitely?