The US Secretary of State, Ms Madeleine Albright, has cautioned Russia that any military assistance to Yugoslavia during the current crisis would be a "grave mistake". The warning, conveyed to Russia's foreign minister, Mr Igor Ivanov, went no further than that and is being viewed in Moscow as further evidence of what it describes as "NATO's double standards". In the unlikely event of military assistance to President Slobodan Milosevic, the Russian argument goes, there is little danger of NATO sending cruise missiles into the centre of Moscow to destroy the headquarters of the Defence Ministry of the Russian Federation. Russia's military capacity, unlike Yugoslavia's, is such that NATO would not take the risk. Similarly because of China's strength, it is argued, NATO has not for a moment considered military action in Tibet.
Because it is still capable of destroying the planet several times over, Russia feels that its voice should be heard on the current conflict. The announcement, therefore, by the G8 group of industrialised nations that it intends to go back on its earlier decision to reject Moscow's request for a meeting is to be welcomed. The opening of dialogue is more constructive than the wagging of fingers. Russia's position on the Yugoslav crisis is a complicated one. The views of those who say that Moscow's opposition to NATO's current actions constitutes support for Mr Milosevic are too simplistic to be taken seriously.
Pan-Slavic nationalistic statements emanating from the Kremlin and the foreign and defence ministries merely serve the purpose of pleasing public opinion. Talk of defending Russia's "Slavic brothers" in Serbia should be heard in the context of statements of a similar nature by other governments, including our own, when domestic consumption needs to be catered for. Military co-operation with Yugoslavia has already been ruled out by President Yeltsin. What has really angered Russia is not the treatment of the Serbs by NATO but what it sees as the usurpation of the powers of the United Nations, although it can be argued that Russia's record on the security council allowed the UN's powers to be usurped. It should be remembered also that in the second World War Russia lost many millions more lives than all the NATO countries combined. The start of a new war in Europe, the sight of a European capital in flames, resonate more strongly in Moscow than elsewhere.
Ever since victory in the cold war fell to the West, due, it should be stressed, to economic rather than military actions, NATO has been seeking a new role. Each added responsibility it has taken upon itself has caused friction with Russia. Its expansion eastwards towards Russia's borders has aroused deep-seated suspicions. Historically the West has provided little to Russia other than threats to its existence. Invasions by Poland and Lithuania, attacks by Napoleon and Hitler, were dealt with at great human cost. It has been tempting for NATO to ignore Moscow because of its current weakness. But Russia has shown resilience in the past. In its vast resources and its highly-educated population it has the ingredients for a renaissance. The alienation of Russia, the start of a new cold war, albeit against a much weaker opponent, could have long-lasting and serious consequences. An element of sensitivity is required in NATO's dealings with its former enemy.