The main feature of this NRC meeting was that military representatives took part in it for the first time after a long break. The conversation was open and frank: it was focused, mainly, on the consequences of NATO decisions to increase its military capabilities and military activity on the Eastern flank for the European and regional security. We consider these measures groundless, excessive and counterproductive. They are of a confrontational nature, they weaken European and regional security, bring us back to the Cold war schemes of ensuring security. Russia does not pose a threat to the members of the Alliance. We are not interested in the confrontational model of coexistence imposed on us. It contradicts fundamental security interests of the Europeans and the goals of shaping the European security without “dividing lines”.  NATO is not adapting to a new security environment, but, in fact, by its decisions is creating such a new environment, forcing us, by its actions, to adapt our military posture to this new security situation. It is, by no means, our choice. But we certainly will do our best to ensure our security.
The danger is that the confrontational policy based on the “mythical threat” from Russia is taking the form of military planning and military activities near our borders. The territory of the Eastern European members of the Alliance who call themselves “frontline” states has been turned into an area for military deployments and politico-military pressure on Russia. A military dimension has been introduced in our relations with our immediate neighbours. From the point of view of classical military threats, Central and Eastern Europe has always been calm where progressive forms of promoting security were practiced. It is obvious that all these do not strengthen, but, on the contrary, weaken the security of the “Eastern periphery”. NATO forces us to consider these countries as territories where capabilities endangering Russian security are concentrated, including US/NATO missile defence sites which have a long-term destabilising potential not only for the European security, but also for the strategic stability.
We believe that the way to stabilise and improve the situation is not through cosmetic confidence-building measures (though we discussed it during the meeting too), but through the freezing of NATO military deployments near the Russian borders and reduction of military activities there, withdrawal of deployed units to their peace-time permanent locations.
Such an approach will help reduce risks of dangerous incidents and create the atmosphere necessary for a constructive dialogue.
We are open to discuss ways to minimize risks of dangerous military incidents. We reaffirmed that we are ready to work on the basis of existing bilateral mechanisms with NATO countries. Our military representatives announced that we support the plan of the Finnish President Niinistö to increase the safety of flights in the Baltic airspace. We are ready for meaningful consultations at the military level with representatives of NATO and other countries that carry out air activity in this region. Let's if NATO members are ready to move in this direction.
We also discussed the Ukrainian crisis. We expressed concern about the degrading situation in the south-east of the country, persistent ceasefire violations, intensified shellings of the settlements by the Ukrainian armed forces. About 80 percent of them account for the settlements controlled by the self-defence forces. As President Poroshenko left Warsaw, Ukrainian armed forces carried out a barbaric shelling of Gorlovka from artillery systems that should have been be withdrawn.
Sustainable settlement is impossible without progress on security and political tracks. We informed about the proposals that Russia supports to disengage sides. We called on all NRC members to use their influence on Ukrainian authorities to persuade them to renounce military means of crisis settlement and to fully implement their political commitments. We pointed out that by rendering political and military support to Kiev, the Alliance plays into the hands of the "party of war” that still intends to settle the conflict in Donbas by military means. It is of our particular concern that Ukrainian military, trained by instructors from the USA, Canada and other NATO countries, are deployed to the line of contact. We see information about foreign military equipment delivered to Ukraine designed for artillery fire adjustment, including UAVs.
The security is impossible without progress on political aspects of the settlement. It is necessary to recognise the special status of Donbas on a permanent basis, to adopt laws on amnesty and elections, to introduce changes in the Constitution. All these must be agreed in package and in direct dialogue between Kiev and DPR and LPR, but not selectively, as it is suggested by Kiev authorities.
On a positive note: NRC members acknowledged that the Ukrainian crisis can only be settled through political means and on the basis of the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. There is not and cannot be any military solution. Another question is whether everybody is ready to contribute to it not in words but in deeds.
We also discussed the situation in Afghanistan. It is of interest not only from the perspective of the overall security situation in the Southern periphery, but also the necessity to ensure security of both our borders and our immediate allies. Here, I think, our assessments coincided. NATO expressed concern about the deteriorating security situation. We have some nuances, in particular, regarding the number of ISIL fighters in Afghanistan and the territories controlled by the Taliban. Nevertheless, NATO made it clear that it will continue to provide necessary assistance to the government of Afghanistan, including through the Resolute Support Mission, and financial support to ANSF until the end of 2020.
Long-term stabilization of Afghanistan requires joint efforts of the international community. Unfortunately, NATO decision to suspend practical cooperation projects, including on training for helicopter engineers and counter-drug officers, negatively affected the security of all NRC members, damaged the interests of the Europeans themselves. In fact, it was another lost opportunity to counter common challenges together.