HISTORIC DECISION

The adoption of NATO's new strategic concept, the situation in Afghanistan and relations with Russia were seen initially as the main themes of the NATO summit in Lisbon. And we can say that success attended the Portuguese summit on all three issues, at least formally and for the short term.

First of all, the 28 member countries of the alliance agreed on their priority task and the list of the most likely threats to what they call the most successful military-political bloc in history over the next 10 years. In addition, the allies will reform NATO to redeploy its resources and to act more effectively in areas such as collaboration with civilian agencies and overall cyber security. The Alliance is also ready, if required, to protect its interests anywhere in the world, including on matters such as energy security.

In Lisbon, it was necessary to demonstrate that the alliance has moved on from its Cold War role and is fully prepared for the realities of the 21st century. It was also important to show that there is unity in the ranks. The summit emphasized strongly that the US and NATO should not be equated and that NATO is a collective organization, in which all decisions are taken by consensus. This is particularly relevant against the backdrop of the differences which, whether the NATO military leadership wants it or not, exist between Washington and European countries within the organization. And many of them are now forced to cut not only social, but also defence, spending because of the global financial crisis.

On the one hand, the US is happy with this situation - European countries have become more accommodating, as they concentrate on their internal affairs, leaving military concerns to Washington. But on the other hand, the main burden of the counterterrorist operation in Afghanistan continues to lie on the American army and economy. After all, Afghanistan is now the most important and most sensitive issue for NATO.

As was decided in Lisbon, next year the Alliance will begin a phased withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan (there are currently about 150,000 troops there). It is planned to complete the withdrawal by the end of 2014. The process will depend on how ready the Afghan police and army are to ensure the country's security on their own. NATO outposts may still remain in unstable regions. In turn, the Alliance intends to bring broad international assistance to the country, including via cooperation with the UN.

However, many experts, politicians and army officers of NATO member states doubt that the Afghan government, army and police will be able to take responsibility for the situation by 2014. Some do not believe that NATO will be able to cope with its mission in Afghanistan.

Also, many NATO allies and partner countries complain that too little is being done in Afghanistan to stop the outflow of narcotics which spread throughout almost the whole world, destabilizing, among other things, the situation in neighbouring countries.

The second important outcome of the Lisbon summit was that NATO countries approved a European missile defence system. And one of the most important aspects of the agreement on the missile defence system was Russia's consent to cooperate on this issue with Western countries. A year ago, even the most courageous politicians did not even consider this possibility, and now it has become a reality. The parties "agreed to discuss cooperation on missile defence and establish a joint commission to identify missile threats". In addition, the defence ministers of the NATO - Russia Council will deal with a general analysis of the future order of missile defence - the first results will be summarized in the summer of 2011. According to Medvedev, the new version of the missile shield does not change the balance between Russia and NATO, but is directed against threats that Russia will sooner or later have to confront alone.

However, we think that we should not be excessively optimistic about European missile defence, especially as far as Russia is concerned. Firstly, the project still exists only in general terms. And secondly, according to some experts, such an expensive system seems unlikely to have been created as a shield against Iran alone, as it is not yet known whether it will ever become a nuclear power.

Moscow agrees to participate in the European missile defence system only on an equal footing with other countries. It became known later that during a meeting behind closed doors with the NATO leadership in Lisbon, the Russian president put forward the idea of a sectoral missile defence system, in which each side will provide security for its own sector. Previously, it was only about exchanging information on possible threats. However, US President Barack Obama and other NATO leaders reportedly rejected the proposal, citing a lack of technical details.

At the same time, the fate of the US-Russian START-3 treaty is not clear yet in the US itself and if Washington fails to ratify it, Moscow will certainly wish to review the key points of its relations with NATO, first of all with regard to missile defence.

However, in regard to relations between Russia and NATO, the summit in Portugal can truly be called historic. Russian President Medvedev was one of the most anticipated guests in Lisbon, and this means much. Especially as it was the first meeting of this level since the Russian-Georgian conflict in August 2008. NATO continues to support Georgia, but does not reject friendship with Russia. This, of course, has its own rationale - first and foremost, the Alliance needs Moscow to assist with counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan, especially with cargo transit.

But there is no doubt that the Cold War really is over - NATO no longer sees rivalry with Russia as the reason for its existence. On the contrary, all the leaders of the Alliance see Moscow as almost the main partner, especially when it comes to the fight against threats like cyber terrorism, nuclear terrorism and the spread of nuclear weapons and narcotics, as well as modern piracy, climate change, the emergence of new conflicts and so on.

It is notable that NATO's conciliatory tone towards Russia came not only from the lips of the US or European friends of Russia like Germany, but also from states that traditionally perceive Russia as a threat - the Baltic States and Poland. Thus, the current Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, said that to protect the country effectively against potential aggressors, it is not enough to develop the military component, it is also necessary to have good relations with neighbours. Lithuania's Minister of Defence Rasa Jukneviciene also spoke about this. Apparently, the commanders of the Alliance have managed to convince Russia's closest NATO neighbours that their protection is guaranteed or that the threat from Iran and North Korea was much more relevant and realistic than a potential threat from Russia.

In any case, NATO countries are now talking less about traditional threats from conventional weapons. The same Eastern European states are increasingly concerned about threats such as cyber wars and the dangers facing their energy and environmental security, from Russia and other sources.

In this case, it should be noted that it is not clear yet whether Russia is ready to stop perceiving the Alliance as a threat to its national security. For example, some Russian politicians say that by offering Russia partnership, NATO is really just trying to lull Moscow. It is also clear that Russia's military potential, especially in comparison with that of NATO, continues to weaken, and, according to many political scientists, NATO treats Moscow as an equal partner only because it still has a significant stockpile of nuclear weapons and the means of delivery. And also because Russia has a certain influence on countries that could cause a number of problems for the Alliance.

What scenarios await NATO in the future - defence against China alongside Russia or against other, unknown threats to the Western world? Is mankind fully aware of how serious the threat is from cyber terrorism?

It is hoped that NATO countries will be able to implement all the goals they set themselves in Lisbon - because it is one thing to make a decision and record it on paper and quite another to actually implement important tasks. In any case, according to Jamie Shea, Assistant Secretary General of NATO for new threats and security risks, the Alliance's strategy should, above all, be adapted to circumstances.

We can say without exaggeration that NATO's existence is now a basis for stability and security, not only for the 800 million citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, but also for people across the planet. And, therefore, great responsibility rests with the Alliance.