28
Critics can point to Russia’s continued criticism as evidence that Russia is more
annoyed than reassured by NATO expansion, and Atlanticists will agree with Defense
Minister Sergei B. Ivanov comment that “Those Baltic countries are consumers of
security, not producers. Of course, it is none of our business to be theorizing about how
effectively the NATO countries' tax money is being spent.”
60
So long as Russia remains
embroiled in Chechnya, it is difficult to judge how it might alter its military policies in
the future in response to NATO expansion rounds. However, so far, Russia has done
nothing to alter its military posture in response to NATO expansion.
Summary of Findings
Table 5 summarizes the findings. The critics were correct only in that NATO expansion
was irrelevant to democratization in Central Europe as measured by standard indicators
of democracy and civil liberties. Backers can argue that democratic reversals might have
been forestalled, that civil-military relations are better than they would otherwise have
been, and that some states improved their scores slightly once NATO membership was
opened, but these are counter-factual arguments that are untestable. They are partially
correct that the security dilemma has worsened. Russia statements indicate that it
considers its security diminished due to NATO expansion, although it has not engaged in
any clear military preparations associated with such beliefs. The Sino-Russian
rapprochement partially supports predictions that Russia and China would ally, but the
level of security cooperation falls below an alliance. Whether a new dividing exists in
Europe is open to such a degree of interpretation as to make it unknown. On the other six
60
Thom Shanker, “Russian Faults NATO Opening To Baltic States.” The New York Times. 15
August 2004. I:6
Convention