News

Q: Military experts presented briefings at the NRC meeting. Members of the Alliance were briefed on the deployment of three divisions in Western Russia. In return, your delegation was informed about four NATO battalions in Baltic countries and Poland. How important is it?

A.Grushko: Concerning the political dimension, we all understand that Russia and NATO are two major factors that shape the military security in Europe. Surely, it would be unwise not to maintain the existing contacts between us. It would be very dangerous. That is why we cannot underestimate the importance of such exchanges. Briefings help us to understand the logic of military-political decision-making, they give us an idea of the direction in which a military organization might develop, and, generally, they serve for de-escalation.

At the same time, we certainly should not overestimate their importance. While exchanging information and contacting at different levels, we underline that our problems cannot be solved solely by these briefings. If NATO countries are truly interested in de-escalation, they should first stop building up forces at the eastern flank, and then start scaling back the deployments underway in the region, that are justified by the nonexistent “Russian military threat”.

Q: The ministerial meeting was starred by the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, debuting at the NATO stage. What is your assessment of his declarations?

A.Grushko: It would be unwise to make conclusions straightaway. The results of the meeting should be closely examined, including in the context of preparations for the next NATO’s Summit, which presumably will define the dimensions of how the Alliance is evolving and adapting to the new security conditions.

However, speaking about the signals that NATO was impatiently waiting from the new US administration, it seems that nothing has changed. Tillerson was primarily speaking about fairer, from the American standpoint, financial burden sharing. He adamantly insisted that all the countries should work out national plans on how to implement the commitments of the Warsaw Summit 2016 to spend 2% of their GDP on the defense. Besides, he called for reassessment of Allies' roles in combating the terrorism.

Q: And what about Mr.Tillerson’s statements concerning the “Russian aggression”?

A.Grushko: Today, the relations with Russia are defined not by the rhetoric, but rather by concrete steps NATO is taking at the eastern periphery. The essence of these activities is that the deployment of additional forces there will be finished in June. This deployment will configure the new reality that we cannot ignore. We ought to take it into consideration while choosing the optimal configuration of forces that would reliably provide for our security interests in any scenario. 

During our numerous talks and contacts with NATO representatives, including in the NRC, they try to reduce everything they do at the eastern flank to those notorious 4 battalions. They tend to point out that these actions are taken in response to the ongoing military reforms of the Russian Armed Forces, including the creation of 3 divisions you've mentioned. Certainly, this is a cunning logic. It doesn’t reflect the real state of affairs and serves for misguiding the public opinion, proving the symmetry and adequacy of NATO reinforcement in the face of military superiority of Russia. In fact, the military understand that the situation is quite the opposite.

Q: And what is a real state of affairs, in your opinion?

A.Grushko: Firstly, NATO has superiority in all major weapon systems (we're talking about the numbers, however all the measures we take are to guarantee the defense and security of Russia). The overall military budget of NATO countries today amounts to a half of the global budget. The budgets of European allies and Canada together mount to $250 billion. If NATO countries hit the 2% level of military spending, the growth of military budgets in European countries alone will reach approximately $100 billion. 

This is actually twice as much as Russia’s military budget. Also mind that no less than 20% should go to equipment. So I would say it once again: NATO’s declarations are simply a ghost story.

Moreover, when we assess the situation at our western borders, we take into consideration all NATO activities combined. And that is not only those four battalions, but also the deployment of additional US armored brigade within the European Reassurance Initiative, deployment of a marine brigade, prepositioning of weapon stocks for another brigade at the depots in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, ongoing formation of a multinational brigade in Romania, reinforcement of naval presence in the Baltic and Black seas, intensification of air-patrolling regime and a whole package of measures in terms of military infrastructure modernization. Roughly, it is all about a massive adaptation to the European theater.

At the same time, if you follow NATO’s logic, it turns out that our neighbors, NATO member-states, do not have any military potential. However, Poland is known to be one of the leaders in Europe with up to 1000 tanks. That is why, I repeat, it is nothing more than a ghost story.

By the way, during discussions about our divisions we pointed out that despite NATO's exaggerated attention to our steps in reconfiguration of conventional armed forces in the European part of Russia, these three divisions have only 27 thousand troops. It is less than NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence battalions with 40 thousand troops. Of course, we should include missile defense capabilities in these military calculations. The one in Romania has already been transferred to NATO’s command and control, another one in Poland will become operational in 2018.

Q: A question about Afghanistan. NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller told Kommersant that there can not be any practical interaction with Moscow on Afghanistan, in particular, because Russia is communicating with the Taliban bypassing the central government of Afghanistan. How can you comment on this?

A. Grushko: First of all, I want to say that we were outraged by the statement of Curtis Scaparrotti, who said at the US Senate hearings that Russia allegedly helps  the Taliban and supplies them with weapons. We discussed it at the NATO-Russia Council meeting.

Many countries have contacts with the Taliban, including Russia. We discuss with them two questions: security of Russian citizens, and inclusion of the Taliban into the process of national reconciliation. Moreover, our approach to national reconciliation – as for the Taliban's engagement in it - is based on the principles that were agreed upon in the framework of the relevant UNSC resolutions. Those principles are that they should respect the constitution of Afghanistan, denounce violence and break ties with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. At the same time, we consult and work exclusively with the government of Afghanistan and with all regional players, whose participation is essential to achieve a lasting political settlement in Afghanistan. Because they all have the necessary potential for influence.

Q: Is there any hope for a renewed cooperation with NATO?

A. Grushko: NATO's decision to suspend practical cooperation with Moscow was not related to the specifics of the situation in Afghanistan. This was a purely political decision. Today everyone understands that not only it damaged our common interests and weakened the security of Russia and European countries in the face of such threats as drug trafficking from Afghanistan, but also significantly worsened NATO’s stance in this country. They lost the Russian support, which was provided through joint programs and cooperation projects. It is possible that NATO is now searching for new justifications for the decision, which in fact was nothing but shooting itself in the foot.

Q: At the same time, both sides regularly express concern about the situation in Afghanistan.

A. Grushko: Yes, we share almost identical views of the situation: it is becoming fragile, alarming, the Taliban is expanding areas under its. According to the UN, today the government controls only about 70% of the territory. The number of civilian casualties in the past year amounted to 11 thousand people. The drugs situation is getting worse, including the increase in drug production and areas used to farm the poppy plant.

Q: Another traditional topic for discussion between Moscow and NATO is the flights of military aircraft with transponders switched off. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, answering the question of "Kommersant", made it clear that this is one of the controversial issues, that may soon be settled. Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed a different point of view, accusing NATO of ignoring Moscow's proposals. So is the solution approaching or not?

A. Grushko: We proposed to NATO members to discuss the issue of transponders in accordance with the President of Finland Sauli Niiniste's plan, that was upheld by President Putin. The alliance, however, did not support it. That is why some aspects of it, not the problem as a whole, are now being discussed in the framework of the so-called Baltic Sea Project Team under the auspices of ICAO. Russia, all the Baltic countries and NATO representatives participate in it. The group is considering purely technical issues of managing flights of commercial and so-called state aviation, including military. At the past NRC meeting, the group presented a report of its activities.

But today's main problem, perhaps, is that it is necessary to start the consultations of military experts in order to give that topic a push. NATO is not ready for this. It considers the creation of any working group under the auspices of the NRC as a return to business-as-usual.

Q: And it is not acceptable for the alliance ...

A. Grushko: Yes, that's a big problem. On one hand, we constantly hear NATO calls for continuing dialogue on military issues. We hear statements that NATO is ready to move towards de-escalation and creation of additional tools to prevent dangerous military incidents, to talk about perception of security threats. But such talks without the involvement of military experts will not yield any results. And NATO is not ready to get the military involved. This ambivalent position of the alliance is unstable, and sooner or later it will have to choose, like in a well-known anecdote: "Do you need a limo or a lift?"

Q: How important for the alliance is the relations-building with Moscow?

A. Grushko: Many in the West are not yet ready to embrace the new reality: the West has no monopoly to guide global foreign policies. There are other players (primarily Russia) that can play a leading role in stabilizing the situation in different regions of the world. And they are already doing it. At the same time, it is very difficult for many to accept the realities of a multipolar world. Such people are characterized by a particular thinking, once formulated by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He said: the strength of the North Atlantic alliance is that “only NATO is the source of political legitimacy and military strength that no one nation can deliver on its own”. This "Rasmussen formula" did not work then and certainly does not now.