A few days ago we posted some comments and video from American observers on U.S.-Russian relations, which included some exchange of views on realism and the whole "reset button" approach to the Kremlin currently being offered by the Obama Administration. Inevitably this comes back around to assigning blame for "who started it" or whose fault it was for the deterioration of relations.Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's Ambassador to NATO (who also heads up the ultra-nationalist Rodina party) has penned an article in The New York Times, making it very clear whose fault Russia believes it is.
In essence, the entire future of the Euro-Atlantic region is at stake. Missing this opportunity to come to an agreement is fraught with the danger of sliding into chaos on security matters. NATO will be the first to suffer, in terms of both the security and economic stability of its member-states. If there is no political progress in relations with the West, Moscow will have to look eastward to define its foreign policy. Then the West will be faced with new economic and security difficulties.
Is this in NATO's interests, with its operation in Afghanistan at a deadlock and no chance (as NATO allies themselves confess) of solving the Iranian nuclear problem without Russia? Is it a good idea to tease the Russian bear by continuing to support regimes in Georgia and Ukraine only so they stand ready to be used as a counterweight to Russia?
If so, security in Europe is not increasing but, on the contrary, degrading. The conflict zone between the West and Russia is being expanded artificially through no fault of Moscow.
