How do you characterize the current relations between NATO and Russia? Is there a real risk of military escalation? 

Ambassador Grushko: We are witnessing the revival of Cold war stereotypes and behavioral patterns. In the wake of the Ukrainian crisis NATO chose to follow along the path of political and military "deterrence" of Russia. Now this policy takes shape in military deployments at the Russian borders.We see substantial military buildup on the ‘eastern flank’, modernization of military infrastructure, including the US/NATO missile defense sites, intensified military activity, exercises and rotations. NATO considers reinforcement of its military presence in the south-east, including in the sensitive for Russia Black Sea region. From the cold war, we know that the policy of confrontation generates military planning, which in turn generates hostility. Investments in deployments and infrastructure will require an ideological and political justification. And it will be hard to break this vicious circle. It is in our common interest to prevent military escalation. However, we can’t rule out any scenario. Calls for de-conflicting, risk reduction, more transparency in military activities are fully legitimate. However, I would address them not to Russia, but rather to NATO countries which increase security risks by their own decisions and actions. 

What are the shared interests and the most important priorities for political dialogue between NATO and Russia? 

Ambassador Grushko: NATO-Russia Council was created as an ‘all-weather’ forum where both Russia and Allies could jointly scan security horizons, exchange views and concerns and take decisions on joint actions. In this regard the NRC remains a useful mechanism for such a dialogue on all issues pertinent to the security of all NRC members. I would not single out any particular priorities, because the range of common security concerns and threats is wide. Euro-Atlantic security at large, ways to reduce risks of unintended military escalation is on everyone’s mind. Both Russia and NATO Allies feel the heat from the "south": international terrorism, ISIL, radicalization, return of foreign fighters, migration, failed states, poor governance. We have shared interest in stabilizing the MENA region, Afghanistan. All these challenges have dire implications for the security of our people. We are equally exposed to them and the answer should collective. This was the reason behind the proposal of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin at the UN General Assembly to create a broad international coalition in the fight against terrorism. We know excellent examples when a genuine international cooperation really worked: Iranian nuclear deal, the removal of chemical weapons from Syria. We had fruitful cooperation under the auspices of the NATO-Russia Council, including in the fight against terrorism. You might recall the Cooperative Airspace Initiative aimed at protecting from terrorist activities in the airspace, helicopter and anti-drug projects in Afghanistan. Obviously, they added practical value to the security of both Russia and NATO countries. By taking the decision to suspend them, NATO countries hit their own security interests. If Allies are serious about fighting common threats, they have to rethink the policy of deterrence of Russia and engage in a meaningful dialogue about what we could do together. The potential for cooperation is in place. 

Where do you see Russia and NATO in 2030? 

Ambassador Grushko: Making forecasts is a thankless task. Current security climate is unpredictable and volatile. However, it is clear that the future of our common security will depend on our ability to cooperate above institutional dividing lines in the areas of common interests. For that we need to overcome the legacy of the Cold War – the sooner the better. Obviously, the security climate in Euro-Atlantic area depends heavily on Russia-NATO relations, and the foundation which they were built on. Today, this foundation gives a crack due to Alliance's return to the policy of 'deterrence'. It is not Russia’s choice. The situation could be improved, if NATO reduced its military activities and deployments near the Russian borders, withdrew military forces and equipment back to their permanent locations. These steps would allow to avoid a new arms race and create conditions for a constructive dialogue. I am convinced that the policy of confrontation with Russia is doomed to failure. It will not bring any dividends in terms of military stability, because it contains serious risks for regional and European security and to NATO countries themselves. European security can’t be built without Russia or against Russia. Only with Russia. Increasing number of politicians and experts acknowledge that. Sooner or later, NATO will have to revise fundamentally its approaches. 

The interview has been published in German on the website of Körber-Stiftung: https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/themen/russland-in-europa/beitraege-2017/interview-gruschko.html