Highlights of the Press-Conference by Permanent Representative of Russia to NATO Ambassador Dmitry Rogozin, 18 September 2009, Brussels

The two past days brought a lot of interesting news to political life of Europe and the world. First, the decision of the White House to alter plans of developing ballistic missile defence, and then the interesting, bright and emotional speech by the new Secretary-General of NATO, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

In general I can say that a very positive trend was set with regard to developing relations between Russia and leading Western states, USA and NATO in the military and political sphere. Just a few months ago Russian relations with NATO were overshadowed by wrangling, squabbles and a series of conflicts, and if you take a close look at what Mr. Rasmussen had to say today, it is indeed a completely different quality of conversation, a positive determination to build on broad strategic relations with Russia. I agree with the approach of Secretary-General who believes that practical cooperation between Russia and NATO is not a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity, because neither of us can cope with the new problems and challenges alone. Behind these words there is will of a real political actor who assumed this important position in a great international organisation, and is poised to change the approaches, and maybe even the world we have been living in since the collapse of the USSR.

Very important work is now under way both in NATO and in Russia on working out strategic doctrinal documents that set the policy for the next few decades. What we proposed to Mr. Rasmussen was to be proactively engaged in an intellectual dialogue between Russia and NATO and hold a series of joint brain-storming session on the future of the continent, on discussing the possibilities of a deeper cooperation taking due account of interests of Russia and NATO member-states. This proposal was supported. And this should allow us to transform the NATO-Russia Council, which has so far been just a tool for exchanging information instead of being the main channel of strategic dialogue in the military and defence policy. The NRC should primarily aim at bringing together the positions of different states, finding balance of their national interests and making peace in Europe much more stable and secure. For this, I believe time has come to speak seriously about mutual recognition of two important international organisations – on the one hand, NATO, and on the other – CSTO. Pretending that CSTO does not exist is silly and not serious. It is an important organization in charge of security environment in the region of its own competence, of its responsibility. It is in the immediate proximity to the regions that pose a problem for the Western countries.

Just one example is Afghanistan and its neighbours where ISAF troops for the moment have nothing to be proud about. In this light CSTO as NATO’s eventual partner and NATO as CSTO’s eventual partner secures transparency in the elaboration of military policy. We want to know quite a lot, if not everything, as far as the plans of the US and its allies with regard to the future of Afghanistan are concerned. And understanding that policy, its meaning and ends, would make it easier for us to support the international efforts that are being made today in restoring peace and stability in Afghanistan.

As for the missile defence, this subject is a relevant one, and we would like to propose some sort of a road map for cooperation in this sphere. We should not start by thinking where to drag the radar – from the Czech Republic to Georgia or some other place. We should start by what Mr. Rasmussen was saying in his speech – common assessment of threats and challenges, which we have not done so far, and it is very strange, it is dramatic that we have only been discussing the consequences, but never the roots. We should start by having a franc discussion at the round-table of the NATO-Russia Council on what really matters for us – what is a threat to our national or European security, what is the level of this threat, what are the priorities in dealing with these threats. What do we have to do today (or should have done yesterday) and what is the threat of tomorrow? We have to analyze the imminence of missile threats for the European continent that spring from those political regimes that what to get hold of weapons of mass destruction and means of their delivery. We should also focus our attention on non-military threats, say, climate security, energy security where NATO is trying to find its role in addressing these challenges. After a thorough analysis we should assess our possibilities of using measures of political, diplomatic and, maybe, economic pressure on those countries that are trying to violate conventional security regimes. And only at the final stage it makes sense to discuss the necessity of a military response to these threats. And this military response should be a concerted one.

As for Iran, for Russia it is a neighbour-state. This country has its own interests. And we believe that the harsher the words you address Iran, the more sanctions against Iran, the worse it will be for the rest, because it would only trigger a hard line of conduct in Iran itself towards Europe, America and ultimately Russia too. Therefore what we need to do is to try to understand what are top priority national interests for Iran. That said I should underline that Russia regards any attempt of no matter which country, including Iran, to get hold of weapons of mass destruction with little enthusiasm. Russia is much closer to Iran geographically and if it develops missile weapons we would not feel secure. Therefore, we would unequivocally insist that Iran only develops non-military nuclear technologies.