Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO.pdf - Program on Strategic ...

are show of unanimity from nearly all Russian quarters
condemning <strong>NATO</strong>’s “aggressive” behavior. 5
There is not much doubt that this outcome, combined
with <strong>NATO</strong>’s movement eastward, has introduced a
serious retrogression in Russian-U.S. relations. This
trend was accentuated during the presidencies of
Vladimir Putin <strong>and</strong> George W. Bush, in spite of a new
strategic arms control treaty signed in May 2002. The
invasions of Afghanistan <strong>and</strong> Iraq strengthened the
Russian view that globalization, as proclaimed by the
West, meant American <strong>and</strong> <strong>NATO</strong> domination.
New thinking started to be formulated at this time
about what globalization meant from the Russian perspective.
Not so surprisingly, it rejected American <strong>and</strong>
other western views. “Globalism,” one analyst stated,
“benefits America at the expense of everyone else.” 6
Instead of this version of globalization, Russians began
to accept the idea of multipolar globalism, the
idea that there is a true interdependence among nations
<strong>and</strong> that there can be no single global hegemon
by definition. 7 This notion fits Russian foreign policy
proclivities very well in rejecting U.S. dominance. A
probable new era of Russian policy began with the
address of then President Vladimir Putin at the Munich
Security Conference in February 2007. In part, he
stated that:
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable
but also impossible in today’s world. And
this is not only because if there was individual leadership
in today’s—<strong>and</strong> precisely in today’s—world,
then military, political <strong>and</strong> economic resources would
not suffice. What is even more important is that the
model itself is flawed because at its basis there is <strong>and</strong>
can be no moral foundations for modern civilization. 8
179