The new strategy of the Alliance will consist in struggling against international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The current strategic concept of the Alliance was adopted in 1999. As one of the goals of the Organization the new concept establishes the aspiration for a world free of nuclear weapons, as required by the German government. But at the same time the document emphasizes that as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain faithful to the concept of nuclear deterrence, favored by such nuclear powers as the United Kingdom and France. The document also approves preservation of the principle of collective defense, whereby an attack on one of the NATO member-states is viewed as an attack against the entire Alliance.

By and large, almost nothing has changed, except that the Alliance for some reason decided that the ethnic conflicts in the territory of the former Soviet Union are also the responsibility of NATO. Item 35 of Lisbon Summit Declaration states: “With our vision of a Euro-Atlantic area at peace, the persistence of protracted regional conflicts in South Caucasus and the Republic of Moldova continues to be a matter of great concern for the Alliance. We urge all parties to engage constructively and with reinforced political will in peaceful conflict resolution, and to respect the current negotiation formats. We call on them all to avoid steps that undermine regional security and stability. We remain committed in our support of the territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova, and will also continue to support efforts towards a peaceful settlement of these regional conflicts, taking into account these principles.”

However, NATO Secretary General Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen said NATO has no role in addressing the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh. In this non-binding statement there is one weird nuance concerning the territorial integrity of Armenia. Hardly is it possible that NATO may be aware of Shahumyan, Getashen and Artsvashen. They simply endorsed it, based on “balanced approach”. That is why this and similar statements are practically worth nothing. Of course, such documents are necessary, but primarily for countries trying to assert their vision of the world and consolidate their place in it. In no way do they influence the conflicting parties, and hardly could they ever do it due to the inconsistency of declarations with the real situation.

In light of this, refusal of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan to attend the summit in Lisbon is understandable, even welcomed. Indeed, why go if everything is already clear. And, in this case, to speak about the victory or defeat of the Armenian diplomacy is simply ridiculous: neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan can dictate or impose conditions on the Alliance. Similar is the case with the OSCE; simply things are different there. Every time the territorial integrity of this or that state is mentioned, one recalls long-suffering Serbia and Kosovo. Apparently, all the actors, who in one way or another participated in the proclamation of “independence” of Kosovo, very well fancy what a genie they have released out of his lamp. But on the waiting list there are still many areas and provinces that would like to become independent. Examples are not far to seek: soon there will be the referendum on the independence of Southern Sudan, and powers are already urging the Sudanese authorities to “respond adequately to the outcome of the referendum”. So, they will soon begin to speak about the Karabakh conflict as the most civilized one; morals and manners of Sudanese President Omar Bashir are known to all.

There is no doubt that at the OSCE summit in Astana there will be made another statement, but this time based on three principles. Only this is the difference between the documents. No matter how many consultations are held, regulation is doomed to failure if the main party to the conflict does not take part in the negotiations. And this is true about all the conflicts.