Development of NATO’s new concept
On August 1, 2009 Dane Anders Fogh Rasmussen became NATO General Secretary, who replaced the Dutchman Jaap de Hoop Scheffer. The change of leadership of the alliance to some extent predetermined and changed its current policies and objectives. Prior to this appointment in July 2009 (07.07.09) in Brussels, a conference was held at which, as noted by experts, was launched the process of creating a new strategic concept of NATO. New NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that the development of this document should be "the most transparent in the history of NATO." Despite the fact that the previous head of the alliance also called for reform of NATO as early as 2006, issue of reforming the alliance has become a subject of discussion among a wide range of experts, professionals and the public only with the advent of the new general secretary. What has caused such a "prolonged" pause? The answer is obvious - the inconsistency in the approaches to the work of an alliance between the leaders of the European member states of the alliance and the U.S. administration, headed at the time by George W. Bush, plus, quit powerful bureaucracy.
The new concept is designed to replace the current Strategic Concept, adopted on April 24, 1999 in Washington. Previous concept reflects the experience of NATO during the Balkan wars, and today this concept is no longer valid. Along with this, for the first time the possible military operations were recorded as the response to crises outside the zone of responsibility of the alliance.
What is a "strategic concept" as such? It is a document, which identifies guidelines and regulations on the use of military and political means aimed to address the relevant challenges for the bloc.
The necessity to reform the alliance due to changes in the international situation over the past decade, has acquired a fundamental nature, the processes, which led to the transformation of the military and political situation in the world, occurred with much greater intensity than it could be assumed by the alliance. NATO did not have enough time to respond to new challenges of our time. This fact brought the NATO attention to the need to initiate immediate reforming of the alliance.
Almost simultaneously with the inauguration of the new chief of NATO, a new composition of the group of 12 representatives from NATO member countries (02.08.09) was formed, dubbed the "Wise Men" (Council of Wise Men). The group's task is to develop a new strategy for NATO. Team Leader is former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Currently, active discussions on the new concept of NATO are being held at various venues with a wide range of experts and specialists. In particular, as was noted by Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson Andrei Nesterenko, the final seminar of the sages on the development of a new strategic concept of NATO was held on February 23-24, in Washington. The document will be “approved at the next alliance’s summit in Lisbon in November 2010”.
According to some experts, the new concept of NATO was to be its "certificate of conformity for the XXI Century" and to indicate the indivisibility of NATO from the global security as a whole.
In general, colligating the main directions of development of a new strategic concept of NATO, we can summarize them as follows: the main objective remains the protection of the member countries of the alliance, as well as their allies, their borders and citizens. The fight against cyber crime, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, piracy and natural disasters are defined as the alliance’s priority directions. NATO will also provide energy and address issues of creating a missile defense system, involving, possibly, Russia.
The implementations of a flexible policy towards Russia, as well as the consolidation of the military presence of NATO in Central Asia, are considered as an important direction in the new NATO strategy. In addition, special attention is given to new principles of the use of force in the so-called "absence of war".
In this regard, the issue of NATO expansion to the east does not lose its relevance, especially for Russia. At the same time, positions of both Brussels and Washington on this issue are quite similar, especially in parts of Ukraine and Georgia. According to some leaders of the bloc, neither Kiev, nor Tbilisi at the present stage has achieved compliance with standards acceptable for the membership in NATO.
Concerning the "use of force in the absence of war", it should be noted that, despite the novelty, the essence of this approach is very well known, because it is aimed at achieving those goals that cultivate the Alliance. Above all, it is connected with ensuring NATO’s own influence on global processes through indirect effects. This is especially true for alliance in modern conditions, when the first positions are given to new global players such as China and Russia. In this sense, monitoring the situation in the zone of its vital interests through the designated ways is a top priority for NATO.
In addition, currently for Brussels it is not beneficial to have tension with Moscow, since the bloc’s destiny depends on the situation, particularly in Afghanistan, and, undoubtedly, its whole infrastructure.

Financial problems
An important challenge for NATO is the question of funding. In particular, the emphasis is made on the fact that at the present stage, NATO cannot afford the cost at the level of the cold war. However, as experts note, because of the macroeconomic problems of the NATO member-countries, due to financial and economic crisis, they also are not able to contribute to stabilization of the financial status of the alliance, which, in turn, could lead to cuts in some key projects of NATO. Accordingly, the alliance will need to make the prioritization in approval of the final version of the new concept.
At the same time, it is hoped that those funds will go to fulfill only the "important" missions. Particular attention will be paid to continuation of cooperation in the deployment of field hospitals, where specialists from different countries will work together to improve the efficiency and quality of care, neutralize improvised explosive devices, use helicopters, etc.
Nevertheless, the abovementioned points are not enough to compensate, for example, the financial gap aroused in the Afghan direction. In particular, the Pentagon chief Robert Gates, speaking recently at a seminar at the National Defense University in Washington dedicated to the development of a new NATO strategy, said that Europe did not invested sufficiently in the defense during the end of the cold war and now must make a greater contribution to strengthen the NATO’s defense capacity.
According to him, the lack of helicopters and cargo planes directly affects the "alliance operations in Afghanistan. NATO also needs to supply additional air tankers and reconnaissance aircraft.
"Despite the need, the alliance does not want to change the approach to setting priorities and allocating resources. We should supply those troops employed in combat with everything necessary and allocate funds for implementation of other priority directions, such as the establishment of anti-missile defense"- Gates said.
According to a senior U.S. official, the budget deficit of NATO in 2010 for the first two months has reached several hundred million euros, which is a "natural consequence of insufficient investment in the collective defense for more than a decade." As noted by Robert Gates, only five of the 28 NATO nations have contributed to the defense required two percent of GDP.
However, the shortage in the budget of NATO, more than 720 million euros, has been reviewed recently (4-5 February this year) at an informal conference in Istanbul by the alliance, where defense ministers of 28 member countries of the North Atlantic alliance have agreed on a program of savings that would increase contributions to NATO, the abolition of minor projects and the reform of administrative structures.
The amount each individual country must pay is expected to b determined at the end of March. To date, the share of the main NATO’s contributor - the U.S. is 23%. Second largest donor is Germany: its share is 16%.

Russia – NATO
One of the key issues on the agenda of the alliance is the development of relations with Russia. Discussions with participation of the NATO officials, mainly boiled down to a desire to develop relations, aimed at achieving concrete results. Brussels is convinced that the eastward expansion of the alliance is a stabilizing factor, and the improvement of relations with Russia depends primarily on Russia itself. However, Russian party holds a different point of view on this issue.
The RF emphasizes on the necessity for a common security system that would include all the Euro-Atlantic space. According to Russian experts, the development of constructive relations between Russia and the West would significantly improve the pan-European security and stability.
In this regard, the activities of NATO-Russia Council (NRC) are a major platform for solving existing problems. It is known that after the events of August 2008 in the Caucasus, the Council’s activity was terminated by the initiative of the American administration headed by Bush, while Moscow was attempting to hold a meeting for the NRC to discuss the situation in the Caucasus.
Only in January 2010 in Brussels, a meeting of NRC, in which the parties could agree on a plan of military cooperation in 2010 at more than 30 points in areas such as joint fight against terrorism, piracy, and the interaction through the MEE. The meeting touched the situation in Afghanistan and expressed Russia’s concern on missile defense.
It should be noted that the first sign of improved relations between Moscow and NATO was NATO’s Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s visit to Russia, in December 2009, during which Rasmussen met with President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
Despite some progress, there is no assurance about a breakthrough in relations between NATO and Russia. A few points remain open relating to the initiatives and proposals by Russia to establish new European security architecture. In this case, U.S. officials believe that there is no need to sign a supplementary legally binding document, although the draft treaty, in the opinion of Americans, has many interesting moments.
Regarding the interaction between NATO and Russia in the operations under the auspices of the alliance, it should be noted that this issue is also in the process of implementation. As it is well known, in 2009 Russia and NATO signed an agreement allowing the U.S. to transfer military equipment and troops to Afghanistan through the Russia’s airspace. Nevertheless, currently, America thinks there is a bureaucratic asperity over which one ought to work and settle. Nevertheless, the document is quite compatible with the previous agreements on transit of non-military goods through the territory of Russia to the IRA.
Regarding NATO’s new strategy Moscow very seriously monitors the process of its discussions. At present the views of NATO and Russia apart, primarily on the impact of NATO on the situation in countries outside the North Atlantic alliance. The common language the parties have found so far only in matters of global security.
Among other things, special attention is paid by Russia to NATO's attempt to deploy a missile defense system in close proximity to Russian borders. The steps of Russia's leadership to strengthen the structures of the CSTO, as well as initiatives taken by the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev to establish structures of European collective security and joint defense system seem logical.
 Russia stated its position on the prospects for relations with NATO during the visit of the Group of Wise Men "in Moscow in February of this year. Certainly, a Russian party is concerned that NATO is trying to give itself global powers, as well as attempting to develop scenarios for the use of NATO’s force potential despite the norms of international law.
Madeleine Albright, as a leader of the group of Wise Men, noted that both Russia and NATO are threatening terrorism, drug trafficking, piracy and proliferation of nuclear weapons and urged Moscow to collaborate actively. Madeleine Albright once again stated that NATO's actions are not directed against Russia. "Wise Men" gave assurances that Russia's concern will be taken into account when developing a new strategy of the alliance.
Despite such assurances, Russia's party has no particular illusions about this.
On February 5, 2010, Military Doctrine of Russia was raised and approved during the visit of the Group of Wise Men". In this document NATO’s plans to expand to the east for the first time in the history of Russian similar doctrines are mentioned as one of the threats. In particular, among the main external threats to Russia is considered "the Bloc’s aspiration to expand its powers into a global scale, despite violation of international law, as well as to bring the military infrastructure of NATO’s member states to the borders of Russia”.
The external threats are attributed in the deployment of missile defense systems (MDS), the militarization of outer space, the deployment of strategic non-nuclear systems, precision weapons.
One of the key points in the new military doctrine is Russia’s right to use nuclear weapons "in response to the use of force against it and (or) its allies with nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the case of aggression against Russia with conventional weapons.
Yet the most important task of Russia is to avoid nuclear military and any other conflicts. To this end, military doctrine provides the combat readiness of troops and liaison with the CIS, OSCE, SCO, EU and NATO. President of Russia also approved the "Principles of state policy on nuclear deterrence till 2020.

Conclusion
Concluding all it should be noted that the process of reforming NATO and the preparations for the launch of its new concept for a long time are going to be a source of intense debates among the expert communities. While in general terms the position of most Western experts is common about the necessity of appropriate reorganization of the North Atlantic Alliance, including expansion of "responsibility" zones to ensure stability on a global scale. In the same context is NATO’s attempt to deploy anti-missile systems near the borders of Russia.
At the same time, the Western expert circles ambiguously respond to a new military doctrine of Russia. The essence of their critical research can be expressed very briefly - the doctrine will have an adverse impact on the process of so-called "Reboot" in the relationship between NATO and Russia. American view is prevailing in these evaluation criteria. In turn, Russia's point of view justifies its military doctrine as a response to real threats. Thus, it is fairly safe to predict that the relationship between NATO and Russia in 2010 will be mostly under the sign of the discussion of precisely these issues.

Ikhtiandr Uvraimov
Expert of the Center for Political Studies