Always difficult relations between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia

The climate of the Cold War continues to be present in the relations between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia. The two sides came together at the insistence of the Germans, for whom the situation of uncertainty implies particularly important geopolitical and economic consequences, but despite the wishes of Berlin to bring back reports in a more relaxed atmosphere, the distance between the two parts continues to be enormous. Neither progress on the Syrian situation, although not sufficient to solve the Middle East crisis, have changed the mutual distrust that continue to exist for the problems that concern the territories bordering with Russia. The Ukrainian question is always central, but it is the reason for even deeper frictions, concerning, on the side of Moscow, what is perceived as an invasion of their living space, and from Brussels, the crucial point is the lack of respect international law by Russia. For the Kremlin, the Atlantic Alliance is having a political and military expansionism, which aims to isolate Russia, compressing the geopolitical potential and the international role it should itself entitled. Precisely in this perspective must be framed in the initiatives that Putin has made internationally to emphasize the importance of Moscow and which should be read as a completion of what began with the annexation of the Crimea and the crisis fueled in the eastern territories of Ukraine . On the other hand, the exclusive point of view of international law, which should be the basis for regulating relations between states, Moscow's attitude has been to produce an infraction after the other international standards, circumvented, often , by methods anything but orthodox, like the one to use its own soldiers without official insignia. Following this reasoning the Western resentment can only agree: the aggressive stance of Moscow is a secure destabilizing factor of international balance and convictions, with the ensuing economic sanctions on Russia are largely justified. What appears to be insufficient, however, it is a lack of political bargaining with Moscow, unable to report on the level of a more intense dialogue, able to open a new phase in relations between the two sides, who knows how to bring greater relief. Moscow, in this scenario, has adopted a double tactic: that of stiffness on the European side and that of leadership in the Middle East; in the latter case the intention is to present a more efficient image than the American one, too 'wait, to gain international acceptance and even within the Western bloc, where the enterprises of the Russian forces, and the attitude of Putin, met the success of the agriculture policies within the opposition forces. Moscow has taken a leadership role against Islamic terrorism, which allowed him to gain considerable sympathy, liable to convey a more lenient judgments for their behavior in Ukraine and in Crimea. Consequently, the West's bargaining power seems reduced, although not enough to fall back from their positions. However this state of things remains potentially very dangerous, especially for the constant lack of privileged communication channels, able to avert hazardous incidents. This aspect should be carefully evaluated, especially because the custom to intrude in foreign airspace by Russian military aircraft remains a constant, but also the recent case of the American destroyer sighted near Kaliningrad, gives rise to concern. In this regard it relates to the need, felt by both parties, to create communications channels more intense, especially for military ISSUES, where you put the current parts in mutual way of exercises and movements in sensitive territories. The only point on which there have been convergences is the Atlantic Alliance renewed commitment to Afghanistan, a region that has always worried about Russia, for Islamic extremist influences, which can produce in the Caucasus.