Dmitry Rogozin - now on Twitter
Ambassador Rogozin has become even more interactive and is now micro-blogging on Twitter in English and Russian. You can follow and comment at http://twitter.com/Rogozin read more...
|
|
Polls show that Russian society has no fear of NATO, but has until now no particular liking for it either. NATO’s military infrastructure approaching closer to Russian borders did not create a good mood for the Russians. For elites and people of Russia national sovereignty and independence in the decision-making process is an indisputable value in itself. Any foreign muscle-flexing in the immediate proximity to national frontiers awakes the complex historic memory and arouses the resistance and self-defense instinct... Besides, Russian membership in NATO could hardly be the right goal at the time when the Alliance itself is at a crossroads and some of its member-states are frightening each other with the “Russian Bear” now and then. NATO obviously needs to establish a new political-strategic consensus
“Highlighting the progress made since the Second World War in overcoming its legacy and in reconciliation, we reaffirm our determination to prevent new tragedies and to save succeeding generations from the threats to peace and security.” The joint statement was a sign that the Victory in World War II continues to be an event that brings together states from various regions of the world, and that it was thanks to it that the establishment of the contemporary international order became possible. Against this background, unacceptable are attempts to revise the outcome of the war, or question the Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal, which unequivocally condemned Nazism and gave a legal assessment of its crimes
The new study, performed by one of the country’s largest research centres, Levada, suggests that 33% of Russians, which is 10% more than last year, want closer cooperation with the alliance. Following the conflict in South Ossetia in August 2008, formal talks between Russia and NATO were suspended, which was immediately reflected in the public opinion polls with just 23% of Russians supporting the alliance. However, in recent years, Russia and NATO cooperated significantly more in such areas as fighting world terrorism, tackling the issue of drug trafficking, and even performing military training together. The figure, nevertheless, is still far from the 2003 peak when 48% of Russian supported NATO
We now have a separate document that brings into question participation by nations with problems in their legal status. In particular, an organisation that is subject to United Nations sanctions cannot apply to become a SCO member. I think that this is also fully clear, in terms of who can and who cannot apply in today’s circumstances. And finally, in my view, the number of SCO observers can also grow, because this provides an opportunity to get to know one another and understand what it would mean to be a participant, not to mention the opportunity to participate in SCO events as a so-called Dialogue Partner, where a state can simply participate in certain programmes – and the number of programmes is growing every year
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has criticized the way NATO officials interpret Russia’s new military doctrine. In an interview with the Moscow-based Kommersant newspaper, he explained that the doctrine did not see NATO as a security threat and was in fact not about threats but about hazards. The latter do not include NATO as such but quite different things as, for example, the alliance’s efforts “to project its military potential onto any part of the world in breech of international law”. The fact that NATO’s defenses spread far beyond its territory and its military infrastructure approaches Russia’s borders leaves Moscow worrying. Finally, the list of the alliance’s security cooperation partners mentioned the United Nations as a consulting partner. But in matters pertaining to the use of force, consultations are not an appropriate form as regards the UN
The leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (CSO) will gather for a summit in Tashkent on June 10-11 to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and Kyrgyzstan, a Kremlin aide said on Wednesday. The discussion will focus on Afghan drug trafficking and restoring order in the troubled Central Asian state of Kyrgyzstan following the overthrow of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev in April. “Special attention will be paid to the situation in Kyrgyzstan and the peace efforts in Afghanistan including through the establishment of multi-party cooperation with the Afghan government and other interested partners in the sphere of security and economic cooperation and the fight against Afghan drug trafficking,” Sergei Prikhodko said. The agenda of the summit will also include procedures on adopting new members to the SCO, which currently consists of Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan
We do not turn away from difficulties, but as far as possible maintain contacts in the humanitarian, social and cultural spheres, and engage in dialogue with all reasonable people. Recently, for the summer vacation period charter flights were resumed that had already been carried out during Christmas and Easter. The Upper Lars border crossing point has been opened. We encourage contacts between intellectuals, and inter-church ties. Everything else depends on the common sense and responsibility of the Georgian politicians. It is my belief that with time an understanding will take root in Tbilisi that to live in peace and harmony with all the neighbors is in its long-term national interest
NATO is off the agenda for now. A spokesperson for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Oleg Voloshin, says that the motivation for this is that the majority of Ukrainians stand for the non-bloc status of the country. “That means that not only the issue of joining NATO, but also the issue of joining any military bloc cannot be on Ukraine’s foreign policy agenda. That’s perhaps our contribution to stability in the region. We do think that a non-bloc Ukraine would contribute much greater to peace and stability in Eastern Europe, as well as to peace and stability between the west and Russia,” Oleg Voloshin said
The pact cannot be squeezed into a narrower bloc strategy of NATO. Instead, we should ponder possibilities to implement the new NATO strategy if the European security pact is adopted, which I don’t think would be a problem. However, the North Atlantic alliance rejects any forms of binding international obligations and any limits on its activity. Moreover, the proposed pact better meets modern realities and development prospects of Europe and the world. As for the new NATO strategy presented by Madeleine Albright’s commission (Madeleine Albright chairs NATO’s Strategic Concept Expert Group), it contains many elements which a German analyst aptly described as a desire to determine the future by means of the recent past and the present
I’m not too sure, by the way, that Albright calls the question of European security a threat to NATO. Of course if we really adopt a new European security act, I think that all of NATO would change, and not be a threat. Regarding the question of European security architecture, it is helpful that Medvedev made his proposal, but this a question that has been on the agenda since the moratorium of the CFE treaty. We have a lot of questions to solve: the question of conventional disarmament, the question of energy security, the question of human rights, the resolution of so-called frozen conflicts and the security of all the countries in Europe. There are different perceptions of who is a threat. The Baltic countries perceive Russia as a threat. In Poland, I think the situation has changed a little since relations between Russia and Poland have gotten better. In Germany, I would say no one sees Russia as a threat anymore. Of course in Russia, many people see NATO as a threat. So there is really a lot to do to create a situation where every country and every man in Europe can feel secure. I’d say Medvedev’s proposal is a first step, and now we have to develop a structure to talk about it. We have the Corfu process, but this isn’t enough. We should have something more political where the heads of state can talk about these questions
There's not much point in talking about letting Europeans take responsibility for their own security at a time when U.S. nuclear weapons are still deployed in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy. In addition, the United States makes no secret of its plans to deploy its missile defense systems in Southeastern Europe. As residents of Odessa say to such proposals, "Don't make my slippers laugh!" Bacevich also suggests that a NATO free of U.S. influence could take responsibility for "guarantee[ing] the territorial integrity of Poland and Lithuania." As a linguist by training, allow me to translate. In the Western press, "the territorial integrity of Poland and Lithuania" tends to mean "defense from Russian aggression." This idea is simply ridiculous: Democratic Russia has never given cause for Baltic or Eastern European states to tremble over their sovereignty or security, despite NATO's attempts to portray Russia as an enemy threatening to attack in the dead of night (the way "NATO ally" Mikheil Saakashvili launched an attack on South Ossetia in 2008).
|
Important Issues
April 30, 2010
Sergey Lavrov at the 61st Parliamentary Assembly Session
|
Documents
August 18, 2008
Statement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
June 5, 2008
Dmitry Medvedev's Speech at Meeting with German Political, Parliamentary and Civic Leaders
April 4, 2008
Chairman’s statement: Meeting of the NATO-Russia Council at the level of Heads of State and Government held in Bucharest
April 3, 2008
Bucharest Summit Declaration, issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008
February 22, 2007
Vladimir Putin's Speech and the Following Discussion at the Munich Conference on Security Policy
All documents
|
