Another black-and-white stripe for Russia-NATO relations is the defunct Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty). Although it is not strictly correct to describe it as defunct (since it is still valid in all European countries apart from Russia), it is not a full-blown treaty without the participation of Russia.

       Interfax has published a long interview on Russia-NATO relations with Nikolai Korchunov, Russia’s acting ambassador to NATO, who expects to take the job permanently pending official approval of his candidacy. As befits a career diplomat, he spoke at length about the successes achieved by the Russia-NATO Council, and they do exist, no matter how much anyone may seek to cast aspersions on the history of cooperation between the two sides.

       Anti-drug personnel for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asian states have been trained in Russia, with 141 foreign specialists completing the course since early 2012. Work is ongoing on the remote explosives detection project. Anti-piracy cooperation has been organized around the Horn of Africa. Scientific and military-technical cooperation has made some headway, albeit not without problems. For example, the Novosibirsk Aircraft Repair Plant has been training Afghan technicians who will service Mil Mi-17 helicopters purchased from Russia. Admittedly, Mr. Korchunov thought better of saying that the idea to buy Russian choppers for the Afghan army had originated in NATO Headquarters in Brussels but that it proved impossible to reach a consensus with certain members of the alliance. It was the United States that eventually had to pay for the aircraft, in spite of fierce resistance from its own Congress, particularly the Republicans.

       But in spite of everything the deal still went through. The Americans, realizing that the Russian helicopters are a better option for Afghanistan and its army – they are simple to operate and service, and are better suited for work in the mountains than their U.S. counterparts – intend to purchase several more of the same helicopters (again against the better judgment of certain Congressmen).

       The Russia-NATO Council has also made advances in computerized command-and-staff exercises on theater of war antimissile defense and counter-terrorism exercises. The two sides have compared notes on how to react to terrorist attacks. They have been preparing to sign an intergovernmental agreement on airspace cooperation. While the agreement is being coordinated by different government agencies, there has been actual cooperation on the ground for some 18 months.

       What is the point of this all? The aim is for the military aircraft of different countries to react in a coordinated manner to any air incidents that may result from the kidnapping by terrorists of a combat, passenger or military transport plane. Joint exercises of this kind took place not so long ago. Air data exchange centers have been launched in Poland, Russia, Turkey and some other countries. What remains to be done is to legalize this program, but bureaucracy in Brussels and Moscow is the same as always. All that one can do is to wait.

       Along with the successes that have been achieved in mutually beneficial cooperation, another aspect which deserves a mention is the highly lucrative transit of non-hazardous cargo to and from Afghanistan through Russian territory, including a transit center on the Vostochny airfield in Ulyanovsk that will start operations on August 1.

       But despite these achievements, there are grave, even fundamental differences between the partners. Let us go back to Afghanistan.

       Russia has cooperated with NATO from the first moment the alliance (along with the U.S.) entered Afghanistan in keeping with the UN Security Council resolution. Russia shared its own intelligence information with Brussels, held the necessary consultations with them, and even supplied heavy weapons to the Northern Alliance that fought alongside NATO forces against the Taliban. Add to this the anti-drug personnel training, helicopter sales, and the opening of the transit corridor… Yet despite this, Russian representatives are not invited to attend meetings of the 23-nation counter-terrorism alliance of partners: allegedly these gatherings can only be attended by non-NATO members who have military contingents in Afghanistan. Japan, for example, has contributed considerable amounts of cash to support the allied operations. Japan is not a member of the partner group either and has no ambition of becoming one. But it is one thing to allocate money and then, in principle, forget all about it, and quite another to allow one’s territory to be used for transit of shipments without always knowing what is being shipped and why.

       Brussels recognizes the difference and has promised to think the problem over. They are still doing so.

       Another black-and-white stripe for Russia-NATO relations is the defunct Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty). Although it is not strictly correct to describe it as defunct (since it is still valid in all European countries apart from Russia), it is not a full-blown treaty without the participation of Russia. Much has been said about the reasons behind its collapse. What is more important is to find a replacement, because control of conventional weapons, or, to put it another way, having trust in your neighbors, both near and far, is a crucial factor in international life. Of course, there are the Vienna Document on the Annual Exchange of Military Information and the Open Skies Agreement, which secure at least a degree of transparency. But Europeans are hardly likely to come to the Kaliningrad Region or the Krasnodar Territory to make sure that Iskander systems have not been deployed there.

       Moreover, no one knows what the solution is. European borders have changed dramatically over the last 10 to 15 years. What should be done about Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which Russia regards as independent and sovereign states, while for certain European politicians they are just “occupied territories”? Or take Northern Cyprus, an independent country for Turkey and for others, well everyone knows…

       In a word, the new Russian ambassador to NATO will have his work cut out for him. He will definitely be more diplomatic than his predecessor and avoid scandalous comments on NATO’s behavior. But this does not mean that we should expect an improvement in relations between NATO and Russia, because that is beyond the ambassador’s scope.

       This article was originally published in Russian in Nezavisimaya Gazeta

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.