In addition to NATO, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Excerpts from a feature on the NATO website follow. Note who the participants are. There are those out there who almost daily speak of the U.S. being isolated and Russia all but confidently straddling the globe with invincible power projection. People will know who is meant. The prospects that existed for building global multipolarity through both pre-existing and emerging organizations twenty years ago have hardly been realized. What is most distressing at the current moment is that the more than six-sevenths of the world outside of the 30 NATO member states, Ukraine and Russia are conspicuously silent on the threat of war in Europe, fraught as it would be with even broader and graver consequences. (For those who object, as it’s certain they will, that a recent comment by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi supports Russia in its conflict with Kiev, the U.S. and NATO, Ukrainian government media cite the same statement to assert the contrary. To anticipate another objection: the Russian ambassador to Venezuela recently stated that his host country’s constitution forbids the stationing of foreign forces and assets.)

As it appears that the U.S., Britain and France will take the issue to the United Nations Security Council, matters don’t look good for Russia. The ten current rotating members – Albania, Brazil, Gabon, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Norway and the United Arab Emirates – aren’t likely to vote against a U.S. resolution condemning Russia. India is likely to abstain.

Russia and China, of course, can veto it, but it’s not even certain China would join Russia in doing so. China is not one of the small handful of nations that recognize Crimea as part of Russia and is involved in forging expanding trade and business ties with Kiev. China, with an eye to Xinjiang, and India, with one toward Kashmir, are wary of what could be construed as a Crimea/Donbass precedent.

Perhaps the greatest missed opportunity of the post-Cold War period was that suggested by then Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov during and in response to NATO’s war against Yugoslavia in 1999: the creation of a China-India-Russia Strategic Triangle around which then current and later multilateral organizations like the Non-aligned Movement, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the African Union, the Arab League, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and others could coalesce. Russia would have been the linchpin in forming the above triad.

Neither Russia nor any other nation can stand alone against the full brunt of the global alliance of, in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, allies, vassals and tributaries Washington established before and expanded to all parts of the world after, the end of the Cold War.


Experts discuss Russia’s build-up in and around Ukraine, and implications for Euro-Atlantic Security

Also see: Wendy Sherman discusses Russian proposals with NATO, EU, OSCE officials

On Tuesday 25 January 2022, NATO’s Public Diplomacy Division and the Munich Security Conference co-organised a webinar on the current security crisis caused by Russia’s military build-up in and around Ukraine, under the title: “The Future of Euro-Atlantic Security: The Russia Challenge”.

Three eminent experts discussed this topic of NATO-Russia and the future of Euro-Atlantic security:

Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, Chair of the Munich Security Conference

Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, Distinguished Fellow, Atlantic Council of the US and former NATO Deputy Secretary General

Ambassador Baiba Braže, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy

The event was moderated by Luis Simón, Director of the Elcano Royal Institute’s Office in Brussels.


The speakers agreed that this is a defining moment for Euro-Atlantic security. Russia’s military build-up in and around Ukraine continues; and combined with the threatening rhetoric and Russia’s track record of using force against neighbours, the sense was that the risk of conflict is real….

Based on earlier publications by Ambassador Ischinger ( and Ambassador Vershbow (, they also discussed the prospects for a diplomatic solution to the crisis.