1. With the start of borders rehashing in Europe and, consequently, with abandonment of the principle of indestructibility of national borders and territorial integrity, the Helsinki Agreement signatories have also alienated themselves of some other major principles, such as of non-interference into each others internal affairs, peaceful resolution of disputes, non-use of force. The bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia that resulted in its actual dismembering is a vivid example. The NATO Western member-countries had been actively participating in the process, to which their recognition of Kosovo independence put a logic end.
2. It is of general knowledge, the relations between Russia and the Baltic states are of the antagonistic kind. Poland, Germany, the Scandinavian countries view further development of the region differently. Still, the contradictions are not antagonistic enough to block the way to consent. The break-through could and should take place, when Russia undertook the role of communicator in this process, the communicator that sees its mission not just to act as a mediator who is good in understanding and considering the interests of the parties, but also to proactively look for new ideas, to minimize emergent threats, to be sort of the ‘foreman of opinions’ who continually creates various new opportunities for dialogue.
3. Russia’s communicative functions of are now demanded all the way along the the Russian borders, from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean – in the Caucasus, the Central Asia, the Far East. Searching compromise and achieving agreements at the regional level might well, likely to the puzzle pieces being laid together, lead to forming a new security system at the global level, the very security system that is en par with the contemporary realities and takes the maximum account of the interests of the overwhelming majority of the world states.