(Click on the image to enlarge)

The organization has grown from twelve founding members in 1949 to 28 today. The most recent new members, Albania and Croatia, joined in 2009.

There are three officially recognized aspiring members: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, and Macedonia. Extending membership is currently a topic of debate, including Sweden, Finland. Ukraine and is less likely to join but the membership is not excluded, it’s on the agenda.

The alliance appears to be constantly expanding with new aspiring nations knocking at the door. This fact is often adduced to demonstrate success. With Montenegro to join soon, the bloc’s expansion grabs media headlines. At the same time, little is said about the emerging trend in the opposite direction.

Over 150,000 people have already signed the petition to kick off a referendum on Slovakia’s withdrawal from NATO. The initiative has been launched by the opposition anti-NATO, anti-EU Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia. The petition needs 350 thousand signatures to start the process.

The country joined the bloc in 2004. No referendum was held. The recent surveys have shown negative attitude to the idea of membership. According to a Globsec agency’s poll conducted in 2016, 47 percent of Slovaks answered that neutrality would be better than membership in the alliance. «As many as 59 percent of Slovaks see the role of the USA in Europe and in the world in a negative light», the SITA newswire quoted the poll. «And 60 percent of them believe the idea that the USA uses NATO to control small countries». The survey found that there was considerable opposition towards the NATO infrastructure. In total, 56 percent of Czechs, 55 percent of Slovaks and 34 percent of Hungarians are against building allied bases on their territories.

Last year, anti-NATO protests inflamed Bratislava. On May 18, 2017 protesters hit the streets in opposition to the plans on stationing NATO facilities on Slovak soil. Support for the alliance membership is apparently dwindling. Slovakia can become the first member to leave it by 2020.

It’s not Slovakia only. Still a member, Turkey is definitely shifting away from the alliance to implement independent foreign policy. The possibility of its exit from the bloc is widely debated. The German aircraft and military personnel are preparing to leave Turkish İncirlik air base as the relations between Berlin and Ankara have greatly deteriorated. It takes place against the background of cracks emerging to undermine the unity of the alliance.

With Brexit gaining momentum, Scotland is pushing for an independence referendum. If the vote is in favor of leaving, it will automatically lose NATO membership. There are voices raised in Greece calling to withdraw from the alliance. 

The organization is deeply divided on many issues. During so many years it has failed to bridge the gap between Greece and Turkey – the two members balancing on the brink of conflict. The bloc is far from being unanimous on Russia.

The idea of an independent European deterrent is a top issue on the agenda. Last July, the EU strategy document titled European Union Global Strategy stated that the bloc should look to create greater military autonomy from NATO. The plans foresee the development of new European military and operational structures, including joint headquarters. Sweden and Finland, EU members outside NATO, might prefer an EU alliance to the North Atlantic bloc. If the concept comes to fruition, the raison d’etre for NATO will be put into question.

Concerns have been expressed by NATO officials over creating rivalry and challenging the North Atlantic Alliance’s primacy as the main defence structure. A European independent capability to carry out its own military operations will greatly weaken NATO and put an end to the Old Continent’s dependence on the United States.

The alliance has demonstrated its ineffectiveness. It is not involved in the most important conflict regarding the future of Europe – the war in Syria, and demonstrates that it is not ready to respond to new threats and challenges, such as the fight against terrorism. No NATO operation is conducted there. Some members take very limited part in the conflict as members of the US-led coalition of the willing. Europe is facing multiple threats in its strategic neighborhood coming from the Sahel to the Horn of Africa, through the Middle East, the Caucasus and up to the new frontlines in Eastern Europe. The US has other threats to fend off. North Korea is a real threat to the US but not to Europe. Their interests do not match.

All in all, the exalted NATO unity is more of a myth than a real thing. There are deep divisions and unsettled problems undermining the organization. No doubt, all these issues will be kept out of spotlight during the May 25 NATO summit. But the highfalutin speeches to be delivered do not change the fact that the bloc is in the lurch and the events in Slovakia confirm the trend.

The decision to meet outside Brussels is intended to send a signal that Eastern European countries will be given more of a say on issues that have traditionally been the domain of core European powers like the UK, France, Germany and Italy. The EU members are divided over how to move forward. Some countries, led by France, Germany and Italy, have pushed for greater integration among EU countries, while others — especially in Eastern Europe — said there was a need to go slow. According to Belgian Prime Minister Charles, Michel countries that want to integrate more quickly should "be able to do so without being hindered by those who choose to take a bit more time to advance."

Member states in Central and Eastern Europe are suspicious of such moves towards a "two-speed" Europe.

Brexit allows adding new issues to the agenda. Five chiefs of governments – Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Beata Szydlo (Poland), Bohuslav Sobotka (the Czech Republic) and Viktor Orbán (Hungary) – concurred on the need to begin a debate on raising a common European army. The project is a clear call for Europe’s independence in the field of security which has been so far strongly rejected by the UK.

This is a major policy shift – a step to European identity and away from the dependence on the United States and US-led NATO.

But the summit will not be about Brexit or the divorce talks, but rather on the need for the EU to undergo deep reform if it wants to survive at a time when nationalism prevails over common European action.

The EU has never seen such hard times in its history. «The purpose, even existence, of our Union is being questioned», EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini wrote in the foreword to the EU Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy – the new document that saw light in late June.

«The crises within and beyond our borders are affecting directly our citizens», she underscored.

Indeed, the Union is facing a host of burning issues to tackle, such as: growing national debts of some member states, the terrorist threat that has not been countered effectively so far, the unprecedented inflow of migrants and the structural crisis illustrated by Brexit.

«Brexit is a turning point in the history of European integration», Merkel said at a joint news conference with leaders of the Visegrad group in Warsaw.

«It’s important that we come up with an appropriate response», she added.

In late August, Italian PM hosted French and German leaders for trilateral talks to lay the groundwork for larger Bratislava meeting. Renzi chose the island because of its part in the foundation of the EU, the Italian government said. Imprisoned there during the Second World War, two Italian intellectuals, Ernesto Rossi and Altiero Spinelli, wrote the influential «Ventotene manifesto» calling for a federation of European states.

EU states are divided on what direction the bloc should take to counter mounting Euroscepticism, of which the Brexit vote is the most dramatic example. Brussels and other capitals fear calls for similar in/out referendums could multiply, most imminently in the Netherlands. Faced with existential risks, Merkel wants to cement "a better Europe" rather than forge ahead with "more Europe." Renzi wants Italy to have a strong voice in how the bloc's future is shaped after Brexit and Hollande wants an EU-wide investment plan to be doubled. The three leaders also differ over how to boost the eurozone’s flagging economy, with Hollande and Renzi both broadly backing more investment and greater harmonization, but Merkel is anxious to preserve the bloc’s integrity and above all not undermine its deficit and debt rules.

The Eurosceptics and «populist movements» are on the rise across Europe including Germany. The Angela Merkel's ruling CDU party was beaten into third place by an anti-immigrant and anti-Islam party in the Mecklenburg-West Pomerania vote on September 4. The Alternative fuer Deutschland (AfD) Party took just under 21% of the vote behind the centre-left SPD's 30%. The German chancellor's CDU was backed by only 19% of voters, its worst ever result in the state. The vote was seen as a key test before German parliamentary elections in 2017. It is especially embarrassing as the state is where Merkel has her parliamentary constituency. The result had great symbolic power ahead of next year's federal election and would add impetus to Berlin city-state's election on September 18. It puts into doubt the nation’s role as the EU’s driving force.

The news is being taken as yet another bellwether that the far-Right is once again ascendant in Europe. Hungary and Poland both have less than 0.2 per cent Muslim population, yet a recent Pew Research survey shows that the populations of these two whitest and Christian of European countries hold the most virulently anti-migrant and anti-Muslim views.

Political leaders weakened at home, as Mrs. Merkel now is, are less able to take the decisions at a supra-national level (on migration, global trade and the Euro) that are necessary to create the economic growth needed to quiet the current populist upheaval.

In the near future, a string of events may greatly weaken the European Union.

The 2016 Basque parliamentary election will be held on September 25, 2016, to elect the 11^th Basque Parliament, the regional legislature of the Spanish autonomous community of the Basque Country. The event could change the political calculus. After the election, the Basque nationalists will likely return to Madrid with requests for more money and local empowerment, adding to the strain on a constitutional model that’s struggling to handle national divisions and a separatist push in Catalonia. 

In October, Italians will vote on his Democratic Party’s plan to enact the most ambitious government overhaul in decades: a bid to end unstable coalition building by stripping the upper house of parliament of the ability to bring down governments. The number of senators would be cut by two-thirds. PM Renzi pledged to quit if he loses, a move that could benefit the anti-establishment Five Star Movement.

In early October, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban called the vote on whether the EU should be able to order Hungary to accept the settlement of migrants without parliament’s consent. The Hungarian government has opposed any EU plan to relocate asylum seekers across the EU. This might lead to an EU exit vote. A Hunxit, perhaps? Such a possibility is not excluded.

Austria will re-run a presidential election run-off on October 2, giving far-right Eurosceptic candidate Norbert Hofer the chance to reverse a wafer-thin defeat. Hofer lost out to pro-European former Green Party leader Alexander Van der Bellen. But Austria's highest court annulled the vote and required a re-run. The win of the Freedom Party’s candidate will mark an unprecedented victory for the EU’s populist right.

The next Dutch general elections will take place no later than 15 March 2017 to determine whether far-right populist Geert Wilders and his Freedom Party will get enough votes to form a government. Mr. Wilders pledged to immediately pull the Netherlands out of the EU should he become prime minister.

Scheduled for October, regional elections in the Czech Republic will become a test to Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka’s power in his own Social Democratic party. A poor result could revive the attempts inside the party to oust Sobotka and replace him with a more Eurosceptic leader.

The history of EU integration has not been a bed of roses. It’s enough to remember the EU vote that resulted in the dismantling of the EU Constitution in 2005 and the problems the EU had to overcome pushing the Lisbon Treaty through. Now the whole United Europe project is on the brink of survival.

Despite all the burning issues the bloc faces, Russia tops the list of EU’s security threats! «Russia represents a key strategic challenge», states the EU Global Strategy. Moscow has nothing to do with terrorism, migrant flows, economic stagnation and national debts. It did not tell the UK to organize the Brexit referendum. Russia did not create the EU bloated bureaucracy which causes public discontent in the member states. Perhaps, under the circumstances, the EU leaders would do better to consider carefully the Union's mistakes and failures over the recent years instead of looking for a scapegoat to distract public attention from the gist of the problem. 

Europeans are reluctant to continue the sanctions war. The economic situation dictates the adoption of quite a different approach. Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban has recently visited Moscow to say he considers it to be a valuable partner. During the visit, he said the industry of Hungary will simply fail without strong economic ties with Russia – a very important and relevant remark. Suffice it to say, that Russia supplies about 80% of oil and 75% of natural gas consumed in Hungary.

Last December, Gazprom extended the contract on energy supplies with Hungarian partners till 2019.

The Paks Nuclear Power Plant, built with the help of the Soviet Union, produces more than 40 percent of the electrical power generated in the country. Russian company Rosatom is going to upgrade the facility.

Viktor Orban told Russian President Vladimir Putin on February 17 that European Union countries will not «automatically» extend sanctions over Ukraine.

He believed the sanctions will hit the agenda to become a subject of intense debates. Business benefits are a strong argument to gradually make Europeans more reasonable. Many of them know who will benefit in case the trade ties between the European Union and the Russian Federation are suspended. Jean-Pierre Thomas, an influential businessman and president of Thomas Vendome Investment, says the punitive measures make his country lose 0.5 percent of possible GDP growth annually. The anti-Russian sanctions were imposed as a result of US political initiative to make Europe bear the brunt. The European trade with Russia is roughly 10 times more than the size of US-Russia commerce. Europe, especially Germany, not the United States, is the one who suffers losses, Jean-Pierre Thomas notes.

According to the Munich-based Institute for Economic Research (IFO), one of Germany's largest economic think-tanks, the Business Climate Index fell to 105.7 points this month from 107.3 points in January (the forecast was 106, 7 points) marking it the third consecutive decrease. The situation is worse than pessimistic forecasts predicted. According to German experts, the prospects for the largest European economy are getting increasingly gloomy due to the continuing crisis in the trade and economic relationship between Germany and Russia. Consumer Price Index in Germany decreased to 15 months’ low in February. The economic damage is only a part of the problem caused by sanctions. The things get worse as a result of social and political crisis in the European Union. It was hit by the waves of migrants at the same time it entered the conflict with Russia. The European Union happened to be helpless as it was unable to prevent the refugee flows coming from the Middle East. European politicians resorted to lies. The refugee crisis has become the most difficult problem faced by the European Union since its creation, says Peter Szijjarto, State Secretary of Hungary for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Economic Relations.

According to his forecasts, the crisis will last for several years with more refugees coming to Europe in 2016 that in the previous year. Europe needs to protect its borders and make asylum seekers comply with the rules of a member-state they enter. Then it should concentrate on the real causes of the problem, including the war in Syria. The Hungarian politician believes that Russia, the country under sanctions, can help. According to Peter Szijjarto, the resolution of the Syrian crisis without cooperation between Russia and the United States is impossible.

The sentiments among voters are another important factor compelling European elites to seek rapprochement with Russia getting around Washington and Brussels to reflect their voters’ mood. The polls conducted in the majority of EU member-states show the patriotic forces are growing stronger. They refuse the dictatorship of the European Commission and firmly support national state interests, including cooperation with Russia. The nearest test will take place on March 5 – the date of parliamentary election in Slovakia. European bureaucracy will be shocked in case Our Slovakia (LSNS) Party led by Marian Kotleba achieves a success.

The party stands for opposing NATO and EU memberships and «dictatorship of Brussels».

According to Slovak independent media outlets, the party headed by Kotleba can get more that 12 percent of the votes to become the second largest after SMER («Direction») led by Prime Minister Fico. Official opinion researchers try not to include the Our Slovakia party into questionnaires. They forget that, contrary to all forecasts, in November 2013 Kotleba won the post of the Governor of the Banská Bystrica region by receiving 55% of the votes. Obviously, the European Union is going through changes. 

The citizens of neighboring Slovakia express serious concern over the ongoing NATO military exercises. Brussels has offered an explanation that the recent movement of military hardware on Slovak soil took place in accordance with previously agreed training programs. The plans to build military facilities in the vicinity of Bratislava have been made public recently.

This idea poses a much bigger threat to the Slovakia’s national interests. The Slovak Ministry of Defense had to admit that the alliance is going to set up a NATO coordination group to ensure that NATO forces can be quickly deployed on Slovak territory. With the group in place there will be just one step left to get the country fully involved in military adventures of Brussels and Washington. For instance, NATO plans may include participation of military units (including Slovak military) in the Ukraine’s conflict siding with nationalists who rule in Kiev. Another option is deployment of forces in Syria to bolster the terrorists fighting against the Russian aviation backed government of Bashar al-Assad.

For Slovakia the implementation of any of these scenarios would mean the loss of national sovereignty and involvement in a full-fledged war to pursue the goals of others that have no relation to the national interests of the country. Any other country of Central and Eastern Europe could face the same situation. NATO has plans to set up coordination groups in other countries as well, including Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bulgaria and Romania.

No wonder, the people of Slovakia intensify protest activities, they block the roads to prevent NATO hardware movement and organize mass manifestations under anti-NATO and anti-US slogans. The last time this kind of manifestations took place in Central and Eastern Europe in 1999 when the NATO military operation against former Yugoslavia was in high gear. Those days these states were not NATO members. It brings up the question: does it make sense for Slovakia to stay in NATO if its people oppose the idea of hosting military facilities of the alliance?

It all equally applies to the Balkans, including Serbia. Any time the leaders of the Balkan states visit Brussels or Washington, they talk about the allegiance to Euro-Atlantic values, no matter if it is appropriate or out of place. But the definition of what these values are is murky enough. In the eyes of Washington, Serbia and Montenegro can be of value only if they obediently execute the orders playing their parts as pawns in US military and political games. They could be used to host military bases in Cold War II scenarios or accommodate formations of terrorists whom the West sees as “good guys”.

However, in order to avail themselves of these new opportunities, Belgrade and other capitals in the region must still ascertain their priorities in terms of cooperation with Russia as a key provider of primary energy resources to Europe.

As Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak reiterated after negotiating with Maroš Šefčovič, a Vice-President of the European Commission, Russia is doing everything it can in order to promptly resolve disputes related to the energy security of Ukraine and of Europe as a whole. The Russian minister noted that the key issue is how to «get through the winter» without difficulties. He claims that Russia is prepared to offer Ukraine a discount on the price of gas for the winter season, charging only the rate at which it is sold in neighboring countries, such as Poland.

In turn, Alexey Miller, the chairman of the board of Gazprom, stated that his company is ready to negotiate with Ukraine about the transit of gas through that country even after 2019, when the current contract expires, but that Gazprom will not settle for conditions that company finds unacceptable.

At the same time Russia is also seeking to make maximum use of the northern route for shipping gas – through the first and second legs of the Nord Stream pipeline. It became necessary to build the second branch of that gas pipeline because of the choices being made by European consumers themselves, who are using only half the existing capacity of that fuel line. The Russians are not to blame for this: Nord Stream-1 is filled to 80% capacity with Russian gas, but previously it operated at up to 100%.

This fact also prompted the parties involved – Gazprom and the major European energy companies – to sign an agreement to build the second leg of the gas pipeline, which will end at the gas hub in Baumgarten, Austria. The agreement to build the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline system, in order to increase gas shipments to the European Union, was signed at the first Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. The project will entail the construction of two branches of an offshore gas pipeline, capable of carrying a total of 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year, running from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea.

As the director of Gazprom noted, «Nord Stream-2 will double the capacity of our modern, ‘transit-free’ route for shipping gas across the Baltic Sea. These shipments will essentially consist of new quantities of gas that will be much needed in Europe, given their own declining production». And, Alexey Miller added, «participation in this project that is overseen by the titans of global energy highlights its importance for ensuring a reliable supply of gas for consumers in Europe».

Since the advantages seem obvious, one would expect that all the countries involved would simply tap into this newly created architecture of European energy security, through regional projects and the construction of «linkages». But instead, some were quick to see a «betrayal» of their interests in the new agreements.

Of course, the European public has had a long time to get used to what can only be diplomatically described as Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s inadequacy. It was no surprise that on this occasion he hastened to proclaim that the construction of the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline jeopardizes the security and continuity of gas shipments to the countries of Southeastern Europe, neglecting to mention that it is precisely the theft of Russian gas by Ukrainians that has repeatedly undermined «the security and continuity» of those shipments.

But on a visit to Kiev, Robert Fico, the Slovak Prime Minister, quite unexpectedly joined the chorus criticizing Russia. And his indignation knew no bounds. «The European Council negotiated for many months about the necessity of helping Ukraine remain a transit country and about helping it survive the difficult winter months. And suddenly out of nowhere came the announcement that Gazprom is signing a contract with Western European companies to build yet another branch of Nord Stream. They have made fools of us! … They betrayed an EU member state – Slovakia – and contravened the political discussions with Ukraine and the European Council», stated the Slovak PM.

To some extend this can be understood. The European Commission’s anti-Russian stance has already become so much the norm that any move by a major European business that does not fit this pattern can cause a shock. However, Europe’s energy security, which the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline should ensure – goes beyond the European Commission and certainly beyond Ukraine. And the sooner Eastern Europeans understand this simple truth, the more gas they’ll have in their homes.

The Slovak Movement of Rebirth led the protests gathering at least 10 thousand people (including the citizens of Czech Republic). Participants waved flags and held banners reading «This is our home!», «We’ll fight!» «Slovakia to Slovaks!», «Slovakia is our country, the land of our predecessors!» «Slovakia is not Africa», «Multiculturalism equals genocide!».

Robert Schwetz, a protester, said the European Union undermined the interests of Slovakia. According to him, the local politicians trying to swim between Brussels and Bratislava were suffering from political schizophrenia.

Protests also were staged the same day in other European cities, including Berlin, Paris and Rome. 

The reason was the fact that the leadership of European Union intensified efforts to undermine the state sovereignty of member-states. The national governments are to comply with the immigrations rules imposed by Brussels. The EU chose the easiest way to tackle the problem. Every country gets a quota of immigrants it has to host. It was 700-800 refugees for Slovakia at first. But that was just the beginning. Thousands of immigrants come to the EU daily. It gives rise to ethnic tensions, raises criminal rate and undermines national security. Unemployment has hit record high 11, 6% in Slovakia.

The problem goes far beyond the limits of EU immigration policy. In a nutshell, it all boils down to contradictions between Brussels bureaucracy and common people of EU member states. The Brussels officials pursue geopolitical goals imposed from overseas. Overseas is the word to make clear who exactly and why undermines European unity and the interests of European integration. 

True, something should be done about illegal immigration. One should get to the root of the problem for a start. Hotbeds of bloody conflicts, chaos and anarchy have been emerging in Europe during the recent twenty years as a result of policy conducted by the leadership of United States and European Union. The US and EU member states interfered into internal affairs of other countries. 

As a result, flows of desperate people started to leave their homelands for the old continent. It made European unity vanish. France began to simply deport the «unwanted guests». Italy resorted to ruses in the spirit of stories written by Gianni Rodari. It opened its borders to let refugees in doing its best to make them move to other EU states. Hungary preferred to build a wall. There are different scenarios. All of them are based on national egoism and political considerations. Brussels does not recognize its responsibility for the situation. It does not offer a coherent strategy. All it does is shifting the blame. The interests of sovereign states are not taken into consideration.

Other countries may come up with the arguments of their own. Slovakia did not invade Afghanistan and Iraq, it did not topple Muammar Gaddafi and it did not interfere into the conflict in Syria. Austria-Hungary (including Slovakia as its part those days) did not colonize Africa.

The refugees from North Africa escape poverty and interethnic conflicts sparked by European colonizers. Slovak media outlets publish a map of former North African colonies as a basis for making appropriate calculations related to the numbers of immigrants each EU member has to host. 30% fall on the United Kingdom and France each, 10% on each of Italy, Germany, Portugal and Belgium. Is it not an example national (or to be more exact – international) reconciliation?

There is another way to solve the problem. There are at least two European testing grounds for Western geopolitical experiments: Kosovo and Ukraine. What about making the refugees go there? The people from Africa and Asia will change the demographic balance to make things right. In Ukraine they will make the Ukrainian leadership come to its senses, at least partially. The protesters in Bratislava and other European capitals have to approach Brussels and their respective national governments that have been obediently following the orders of European bureaucracy. 

Many members of national governments disagree with the instructions of European Commission, anti-Russia sanctions. National leaders assure that they stand for national sovereignty, but when it comes to casting a vote at EU sessions they display unity like it was in the days of socialism. No wonder quotas are imposed. The elites of EU member states are unable to distinctly state and defend their positions on key issues of state interests and national identity.

Foto: hooliganstv.com, polit.ru

«If we do not become a gas transit country then our budget will suffer huge losses», said Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, explaining Bratislava’s initiative following talks with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev 1. According to Fico, the Slovak government understands perfectly well that Russia’s refusal to transport gas through Ukraine after 2019 will result in reduced revenue for Slovakia, through which the Russian gas that passes through Ukraine flows into Europe. This is why the Slovak authorities are making it clear that they intend to work actively to «maintain the country’s key role in the transit of Russian gas to the EU».

The Eastring project, designed to unite the gas pipeline systems of Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania and link up with the infrastructure of Turkish Stream, could play a decisive role in the implementation of Slovakia’s energy policy and the energy policy of its neighbours in the region. «We will only be able to implement such projects if agreements are reached between the four countries and with the participation of Russia. Responsibility compels us to look for alternative ways to resolve the issue», stressed Fico, adding that «the urgency of the project will increase as Turkish Stream is realised». For his part, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has promised that Moscow will look at the Slovak initiative and the implementation of those opportunities that will emerge when Russian gas «reaches the Greek border» along the new pipeline. The talks have «reaffirmed our desire to actively develop bilateral cooperation regardless of any opportunistic considerations», emphasised the chairman of the Russian government.

The preliminary route of Turkish Stream agreed by Russia and Turkey involves the construction of a gas pipeline with a capacity of 63 billion cubic metres per year. It is expected to go from the Russkaya compressor station near Anapa along the bottom of the Black Sea to the village of Kiyikoy in the European part of Turkey and on through the town of Lüleburgaz to the district of Ipsala on the Turkish-Greek border. The gas transport hub being planned for this area is expected to receive and pass on to Europe around 50 billion cubic metres of gas per year.

Russia has already made it clear to its partners that it is willing to look at options regarding its involvement in the construction of the necessary gas pipeline infrastructure, in Greece at any rate. These issues were recently discussed by Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller and the Greek Minister of Productive Reconstruction, Environment and Energy, Panagiotis Lafazanis. Following the talks, both sides noted that Gazprom was ready to consider options for building the infrastructure on «mutually-beneficial terms».

What could this mean in practical terms for Serbia, Macedonia and other republics of the former Yugoslavia that had expected to become a key transit route for the transportation of Russian gas to Europe during the development of the South Stream project, with all the financial benefits and political privileges that that implied? First of all, that the governments of Central Europe, at this stage at least, seem to be more capable of negotiation, more enterprising and more responsible partners than the Balkan governments. This also applies to Serbia, whose authorities seriously undermined its image by launching an investigation, with the involvement of the West, into the 2008 intergovernmental agreement between Russia and Serbia on cooperation in the energy sector that was intended to be the cornerstone of processes to link Serbia with Russia’s gas pipeline projects. And the numerous statements by Serbia’s leaders regarding their commitment to European Commission guidelines can hardly be regarded as constructive and meeting the country’s fundamental national interests in a sector as important as energy. In this regard, the Austrian newspaper WirtschaftsBlatt points out that «Serbia is making cautious concessions to the West», observing ironically that «it is now liked by the United States». We can add that Serbia is also going to be especially liked by America’s energy companies, which are ready to supply the Serbs with shale gas at an inflated monopoly price.

It stands to reason that Russia is not refusing to cooperate with Serbia on energy issues. This was evidenced by the working meeting that took place on 28 May in Belgrade between Alexei Miller and Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić, at which the prospects of supplying Russian pipeline gas to Serbia, as well as the joint implementation of gas projects, were discussed. In this regard, it should be mentioned that a long-term contract for the supply of up to 1.5 billion cubic metres of Russian gas to Serbia per year for ten years was signed in 2013. And despite the unfavourable international political and financial conditions, Russia clearly fulfilled its obligations within the parameters specified in 2014. The Banatski Dvor underground gas storage facility, one of the largest gas storage facilities in Southeast Europe that was built as part of the aforementioned 2008 intergovernmental agreement, is also operating successfully. It has an active gas storage capacity of 450 million cubic metres and a maximum production capacity of 5 million cubic metres of gas 5.

Today’s rapidly changing conditions of energy competition, however, require all those involved to be more committed and, most importantly, more determined to stand up for their own interests. And in this regard Serbia has considerable reserves. As the experience of Slovakia and its neighbours in the region shows, even membership in the European Union and NATO does not prevent them from developing mutually-beneficial cooperation projects with Russia. Provided that there is an objective and independent understanding of national and state interests, obviously.

Could these ripples of discontent with the famed Washington consensus develop into something more troubling for both the  US and Brussels? What can they do about it? All three countries are members of both NATO and the EU. Promoting regime change inside the Euro-Atlantic tentsurely becomes more problematic. Or, does it? Let us examine each case separately and see what the auguries bode.

On 17th November 2014, it was drab and raining in Prague as the Czechs celebrated 25 years since the so-called “velvet revolution,” unlike the classic freezing, East European winter day of 17th November 1989. Demonstrations to mark the event were slated to take place and a mass of candles filled the passage way on Národní Třida (National Street) where student “Martin Šmid” died at the hands of the police, an event that was said to have triggered the collapse of the communist regime. But, hold on: it soon emerged that Martin Šmid didn’t exist; he had been invented by the Czechoslovak security services, the St. B. (Státní Bezpečnost) as part of a ploy to bring a new, reformed post-communist regime to power. 

Emoting over a death that never took place seems weird but, in a way it sums up the banality that lays at the heart of all things connected with the “velvet” events. This was only reinforced later in the day when a group of anti-capitalist protesters snaked its way through the city centre wearing papier maché masks, some bearing the image of the evil Putin, others the reviled (at least, by the local cogniscenti) Czech president, Miloš Zeman. A few Ukrainian flags brought up the rear. Other banners denounced Ecuador’s left wing president, Rafael Correa, hardly a household name in Prague.[i] As the hundred or so protesters passed the Rudolfinum concert hall, a group of elderly rock musicians with lank, grey hair plugged away at some ancient protest songs watched by a handful of leather clad biker types.

Over the river, at Prague castle, a more serious group had been gathering during the afternoon: students bent on delivering a message to President Zeman that it was time to go. They did this by leaving a trail of red cards inside the presidential palace complex (the red card is used in football matches to send a player off the pitch). Several hundred protesters ended up under the ceremonial balcony demanding Zeman leave. Fluttering over the courtyard was the presidential flag denoting that Zeman was in residence. It is difficult to imagine such protests taking place in front of the White House or 10 Downing Street but, no one tried to remove the students who did not, to be fair, behave in a violent or intimidating manner. However, there had been scuffles earlier in the day at a “velvet revolution” ceremony attended by various European dignitaries, including Germany’s President Gauck. When students pelted Zeman (who was protected by an umbrella) with eggs one misdirected andmanaged to hit Gauck. 

What, then, has caused the animus against Zeman? The president is a rather shambolic figure who, his detractors allege, besmirches his office by drinking heavily and speaking “off the cuff” (he even smokes and is regularly photographed with a lighted cigarette as if to highlight his malevolence). 

As long time leader of the Czech Social Democrats and a former prime minister, Zeman earned the ire of the chattering classes by joining a coalition with former president Vaclav Klaus between 1998 and 2002. By then, Klaus had developed a healthy scepticism towards the EU and both men opposed US sponsored wars in Kosovo and later Iraq which led to their being anathematized by Brussels and Washington and, by extension, the local bien pensants, whose hero ex-dissident Vaclav Havel was the first Czech to advocate bombarding Belgrade since the Good Soldier Sweijk in 1914! When Klaus’s term ended in 2012, such people assumed that their candidate, Prince Kari Schwarzenberg, would be effortlessly elected to replace him. However, even though the Czech Republic is the repository of much Hapsburg charm in the form of castles and cultural artefacts, the electorate consists of a majority of post- communist bumpkins unlikely to feel represented by a Knight of the Golden Fleece. 54.8 percent voted for Zeman while 45.2 percent (mainly in Prague) chose Schwarzenberg.

As the role is mainly ceremonial, the president could have been ignored but Zeman has chosen to speak out on numerous occasions and in ways to infuriate his imperial masters. He has regularly demanded normal relations with Putin’s Russia, called the Ukrainian crisis a “civil war” and then, in a radio interview categorised Mikhail Khodorkovsky as a criminal while reminding listeners of the double entendre involved in the moniker “Pussy Riot.” Despite their usual boasts of über-liberal sexual mores, the intellectual elite of Prague expressed outrage at this outburst of vulgarity. “They don’t like him because he’s naughty,” a young reporter from Czech Television said of the student protesters. “How can we have a president like that,” they moan. “He must go”. 

Added to their woes has been the seemingly inexorable rise of a new political party, Ano 11[ii], which came a close second in the 2013 parliamentary election and is now in coalition with the Social Democrats. Many people take it for granted that Ano’s founder, the billionaire Andrej Babiš, now the country’s minister of finance, will end up as prime minister; the party did well in autumn, 2014 local elections. What, then, is wrong with Ano 11?

According to the Czech media (and the Euro-American oriented elite) Babiš is a Berlusconi clone, boss of one of the Czech Republic’s largest conglomerates,Agrofert, who, like Berlusconi, is also buying up media outlets. Ano is composed of old secret policemen and headed by Informer-in-Chief, Babiš.[iii]A Slovak by origin, Babiš took the allegations to court and was cleared, but the rumours have persisted as has the intention to appeal. However, it seems clear that, apart from the twitterings of the Prague elite, ordinary Czechs are not particularly concerned by such allegations nearly 30 years after the Communists fell from power. Anyway, many of the alleged Ano nest of spies and informers were too young at the time of their “service” to have been very important cogs in the machine. All this is a smoke screen. Babiš has trodden on various entrenched local interests. He has also supported the extension of nuclear power in the Czech Republic which has angered the EU’sgenerously subsidised renewables lobby which probably sees the troubles with Russian gas as a golden opportunity to cash in.

Are things any better, more reliable from the Euro-Atlantic perspective, in neighbouring Slovakia? The answer is: not entirely. Slovakia has thrown up politicians frowned upon by the West since its independence was secured by Vladimir Mečiar in 1993. Milan Knažko, an old “sixty eighter” and sometime dissident feared that all the elderly would have to die off before Mečiar finally exited the stage. “Slovaks are stupid,” he said. But, it took twenty years to eliminate Mečiar as a political force only for him to be replaced by another “populist,” Robert Fico, whose leftish Smer (Direction) party won an overall victory in the last Slovak election in 2012. Fico has criticised the EU’s sanctions on Russia and seems to have been forced against his will to implement them, as well as allowing the reverse flow of gas to Ukraine from Slovakia’s own reserves. Of course, his hands are tied as Slovakia is a member of the EU and the single currency. Nevertheless, the empire demands 100 percent obedience, nothing less. Fico stood as a candidate in the March 2014 presidential elections but was surprisingly beaten by a maverick outsider, businessman Andrej Kiska, who made what is described as his “fortune” in hire purchase. Unlike Babiš, his business back ground is regarded as a plus rather than an exercise in predatory capitalism. He is popular with the elites both at home and in Brussels (unlike Fico) and will be an ideal advocate for pushing Slovakia in the “right” direction, for example, by recognising Kosovan independence, something it has refused so far to do to avoid trouble with its restless Hungarian minority. 

But, nothing said or done by politicians in Prague and Bratislava equal the level of disobedience that has been coming from further down the Danube in Hungary. There, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has adopted an openly defiant position on a range of issues that have infuriated the EU. But even more dangerously for his long term survival, he has fallen into the cross hairs of Washington. Since summer 2014, demonstrations regularly take place on some pretext or other against the Orban government and long-term regime change watchers can only debate how the situation will finally be resolved. Supporters are confident Orban will survive as he is “popular,” but that never stopped the engine of regime change. Viktor Yanukovich’s party handily won elections in 2012 but he was deposed a year later; the hugely popular Hugo Chavez and Muammar Gaddafi both ended up dead. 

Budapest protest, Oct. 2014. Photo: András D. Hajdú.

Viktor Orban has come a long way from the days of his Soros scholarship at Pembroke College, Oxford. His party, Fidesz, was a classic middle of the road liberal outfit – a proud member of the Liberal International where it now sits somewhat uneasily. However, Hungarians have always been more nationalistic than many Europeans as manifested in their almost unique language; their sense of national identity and solidarity goes back a long time. When Fidesz  won an overwhelming majority in the 2010 parliamentary elections, Viktor Orban, now prime minister, started to put Hungary first. In the wake of the 2008 financial collapse he threw out the IMF and cancelled Hungary’s debt repayments in foreign currency thus lowering the pain for ordinary Hungarians. In 2011, he expelled Monsanto – Hungary has banned the use of GM crops – lowered fuel prices and, in the same year, changed the voting system to a mixed majority and proportional system modelled on Germany. A new constitution has reduced the number of MPs by half. Something must have gone right because in spring 2014’s parliamentary election, Fidesz again won an overall majority. All this took place against the back drop of a broken political order with most Hungarian parties, particularly on the left, scarred by corruption and failure. The ultra-right Jobbik remained as the only functioning opposition party, something unappealing to most right thinking people, including in Hungary.

Accusations of Orban’s “authoritarianism” have gone on for some time, bolstered by a growing number of NGOs in Budapest (mainly foreign funded and backed) as well as tame academics like Princeton’s Kim LaneScheppelewho has tied herself in knots trying to show that Fidesz’s successive victories at the polls (in 2014 alone the party overwhelmingly won parliamentary, local and European elections) were really failures! Perhaps this might just rumble along, going nowhere while – as in Prague – providing low level political gossip for the chattering classes in Budapest to feed on, were it not for Orban’s rather bold foreign policy moves in the past year.

In January 2014 he announced that a deal had been reached with Russia to fund the expansion of Hungary’s Paks nuclear facility. As the Ukrainian events unfolded and energy security came under the spotlight, this could have been viewed as strategic foresight. Not so; the Americans were now very angry. On top of this, when sanctions came up for discussion after the Crimean annexation, Orban baulked at implementing them: “Why should Hungary ‘shoot itself in the foot,’” he said. Like Fico, he dragged his heels over providing Ukraine with reverse flow gas from Hungary’s reserves. As the hate campaign against Putin entered the stratosphere, Viktor remained committed to participating in the South Stream gas project which only came undone when Bulgaria, the weakest link in the chain, pulled out followed by Russia itself redirecting the pipeline to Turkey. According to observers on the ground in Budapest, Orban was now being “warned” by the Cosa Nostra in Washington that he was going “too far.”

At this time, Hungary was without a  US ambassador. Colleen Bell, a producer of TV soap operas, was stuck in the congressional vetting process, so finger wagging was left to the Chargé d’Affaires in Budapest, André Goodfriend. Goodfriend has an impressive CV for such a lowly diplomat and his excursions into Hungarian political life, including the now formulaic support for LGBT events, have been high profile culminating in the announcement that six members of the Hungarian government were to be sanctioned and prevented from visiting the US. No names were mentioned but rumours abounded as to the whys and wherefores of the decision.

What to do? With a hopelessly divided and weak opposition given the implosion of the Hungarian Socialists who backed EU-demanded austerity all the way, and with the paramilitary, ultra-nationalist Jobbik as the only substantial alternative to Orban’s party, all that remains is to split Fidesz in the hope of producing something more compliant. On 23rd October, 2014, as if on cue, the BBC’s long time Budapest correspondent, Nick Thorpe, reported that “cracks” were appearing in the ruling party although he failed to put any substance behind the allegation, or name names.[iv] Otherwise, there are the NGOs of which there are numerous as well as blogs and online publications which trash Orban and the Fidesz government. In September 2014, the authorities in Budapest cracked down on the Ökotárs Foundation, which disbursed grants to local NGOs from Norway. In a way, this was quite a clever ruse as it followed an expose in the New York Times detailing Norway’s many involvements in influence peddling via NGO in Washington.[v]

Do these expressions of dissent in Prague, Bratislava and Budapest mean that the Euro-Atlanticist order that has ruled the post-communist world so comprehensively since the early 1990s is under threat? Not quite: in the end, even Orban caved in to Brussels’ demand for sanctions against Russia. He still maintains that Hungary is a loyal EU and NATO member. Ditto, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. But, there does seem to be a change in the air. After years filled with allegations of corruption, most political parties in Central Europe are morally bankrupt and derided by local populations. Massaging election results is becoming more difficult when parties acceptable to Brussels and Washington can barely make single percentage points. In the Czech Republic, Ano 11 is heading in the same direction as Fidesz with the prospect of getting overall control of parliament in the next parliamentary elections. Another headache for Washington looms if that happens.

These unexpected shifts away from former subservience in the Central European heartland of Euro-conformity may explain why many of the old anti-communists from the era of perestroika and glasnost are being brought out and dusted down.On 11th December, the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) “the only US think-tank dedicated to the study of Central and Eastern Europe” announced it was beefing up its membership with many formidable regime change figures including Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Anne Applebaum,Carl Bildt,Eliot A. Cohen,and Timothy Garton Ash.[vi] It is hard to see these old regime change advocates changing much without resources to put into play, but remember the successful application of their policies after 1989 resulted in socio-economic collapse and mass emigration from Poland and Baltic States where they were most influential. Does Central Europe want to repeat that implosion by following these horsemen of the apocalypse? It is unlikely that Central Europeans other than the sponsored demonstrators be asked. 

Notes:

Christine Stone is co-author of Post-Communist Georgia: A Short History.

ronpaulinstitute.org

According to the Slovak Ministry of Economy, the document will be valid until 31 December 2029. It has already been approved by the Slovak cabinet. The terms of the document provide for the supply of up to 6 million tonnes (43 million barrels) of oil to Slovakia a year. They also cover the transit of the same volume of oil to other EU member countries through the territory of the Slovak Republic. As of year-end 2013, 5.8 million tonnes of Russian oil had been supplied to Slovakia through the ‘Druzhba’ pipeline.

And this is only the start. According to the Russian Ministry for Economic Development, both sides established during consultations that if the technological infrastructure is available and contracts are entered into between businesses, then transit volumes could exceed 6 million tonnes of oil a year.

Bratislava’s approval of the Russian-Slovak agreement on the supply of Russian oil to Slovakia coincided with a significant anniversary: the official ceremony to mark the commissioning of the ‘Druzhba’ pipeline took place exactly 50 years ago, in 1964. The pipeline is one of the biggest oil pipeline networks in the world and is used to supply Russian oil to Europe.

Paradoxically, the anti-Russian policy of Washington and Brussels has acted as a catalyst for the development of relations between Russia and a number of EU states in the energy sphere. Ukraine’s refusal to fulfil gas agreements previously entered into with Russia and the country’s unambiguous threats to start siphoning off Russian gas intended for transit to Europe are placing Europeans on the brink of a fuel and energy crisis. Supplies through the gas pipeline system under the Slovak gas transport operator Slovensky Plynarensky Priemysel (SPP) have already dropped by 50 per cent.

Under severe pressure from Brussels, Bratislava has also been forced to agree to use reverse-flow deliveries to send Russian gas to Ukraine. Reverse flows began in September 2014. According to the Slovak gas TSO Eustream, nearly 618 million cubic metres of gas were imported to Ukraine through Slovakia between 1 and 24 September. Meanwhile, the total volume of gas supplies to Ukraine from Europe during that same period was no more than 798 million cubic metres. So it is Slovakia that became Ukraine’s main energy ‘donor’ in September at a time when gas supplies destined for Slovakia itself were cut in half. 

Such are the paradoxes of EU countries’ ‘energy security’: they are dependent on the actions of the European Commission, which one might as well refer to as energy blackmail. Hungary has also refused to play the role of gas ‘cash cow’ for Ukraine, cutting off its reverse gas supplies to Ukrainian customers in September. The corresponding agreement was signed back in March 2013 by the Hungarian company FGSZ. A new statement by the company says that in order to ensure the safety of supplies and maintain the balance of the network, the direction of the Testveriseg pipeline needed to be changed and altered in such a way that it would supply the domestic market. A similar clause is also included in the text of the Russian-Slovak agreement. It states that gas supplies from Slovakia to Ukraine will depend upon current commercial and technical conditions. 

At the present time, Russian gas is supplied to Europe through several main gas pipelines – the Uzhgorod and Balkan corridors, the Yamal-Europe pipeline, and the ‘Blue Stream’ and ‘Nord Stream’ pipelines. The distribution pipes branching off from these pass through Poland, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Austria.

In the foreseeable future, Europe’s energy sector will continue to rely on Russian gas, whose share in the structure of Europe’s fuel mix will remain significant until at least 2030, predicts Tim Boermsa, an expert at the Brookings Institute in Washington. «In sum», said Boermsa, «studies suggest that a transformation of Europe’s fuel mix is not going to take place». 

Knowing that Europe will not be able to manage without Russian gas, it is interesting how long the Brussels bureaucracy will continue with the policy imposed by Washington to the detriment of Moscow and of the Europeans themselves.

[1] AFP 131549 GMT OCT 14