#12
BBC
14 May 2003
Russian papers split on Nato

When the new Nato-Russia co-operation mechanism was created a year ago, hopes were high that it would usher in a new era of co-operation after years of suspicion.

Tuesday's first meeting in Moscow of what has become known as the "20" format was proof, according to some papers, that co-operation is indeed running smoothly. But others think fundamental disagreements were swept under the carpet.

The leading daily Izvestiya says the meeting exuded optimism, with both sides keen to stress that the "20" format - the 19 Nato countries plus Russia - had fulfilled expectations.

"Vladimir Putin and George Robertson have buried the stereotypes through which Russia and Nato perceive each other," it says.

However, Vremya Novostei contrasts the Nato chief's positive assessment of cooperation with gripes on the Russian side, in particular on the touchy subject of Nato expansion.

"The Russians were less optimistic," the paper says. "Behind the scenes, Russian diplomats described the Nato-Russia Council as '19 against one.'"

Russian carping

The business broadsheet Kommersant also picks up on the Russian side's dissatisfaction.

Although it agrees that the Nato-Russia Council meeting "finished on an optimistic note", it points to continued Russian carping against Nato expansion.

"This is not the way to solve the security problem in the Euro-Atlantic region," the paper quotes Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko as saying.

"The '20' has a lot of work to do in its second year," it concludes.

The popular daily Trud, on the other hand, thinks the meeting was successful in showing that disputes, like the row over Iraq, no longer disturb everyday co-operation.

"What was needed was a demonstration that disagreements on specific points do not undermine common unity. And this tough mission was carried off successfully by the participants of the Moscow mini-summit."

Cross purposes

The broadsheet Nezavisimaya Gazeta points out the meeting failed to tackle many serious disputes and that many experts were unhappy with the mood of optimism emanating from it.

"Issues such as the different understandings of the alliance's transformation, or Moscow's disagreement with Nato's actions outside its area of responsibility, are not raised at these meetings."

"The sides are also at cross purposes over the reasons for the 20's existence," the paper adds.

"While Russia originally viewed it as a decision-making forum, the alliance regards it as a discussion club."

BACK TO THE TOP    #257 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE