News

If NATO countries are seriously interested in fighting against threats emanating from the 'south', they have to rethink their policy of deterrence towards Russia and engage in a meaningful dialogue about what we could do together. The potential for cooperation is in place. But it bumps into geopolitics and efforts of NATO to justify its raison-d'être by countering the so-called "Russian threat".

NATO expansion has created a level of tension in Europe unseen in the last thirty years. Yet this year marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Russia-NATO Founding Act in Paris, and 15 years since the Rome Declaration on a new quality of Russia-NATO relations was adopted. These documents’ basic premise was that Russia and the West took on a joint commitment to guarantee security on the basis of respect for each other’s interests, to strengthen mutual trust, prevent a Euro-Atlantic split and erase dividing lines. This did not happen, above all because NATO remained a Cold War institution. It is said that wars start in people’s heads, but according to this logic, it is also in people’s heads that they should end. This is not the case yet with the Cold War. Some statements by politicians in Europe and the United States seem to confirm this particularly clearly, including statements made here yesterday and today during this conference.

We categorically reject the allegations of those who accuse Russia and the new centres of global influence of attempting to undermine the so-called ‘liberal world order’. This global model was pre-programmed for crisis right from the time when this vision of economic and political globalisation was conceived primarily as an instrument for ensuring the growth of an elite club of countries and its domination over everyone else. It is clear that such a system could not last forever. Leaders with a sense of responsibility must now make their choice. I hope that this choice will be made in favour of building a democratic and fair world order, a post-West world order, if you will, in which each country develops its own sovereignty within the framework of international law, and will strive to balance their own national interests with those of their partners, with respect for each country’s cultural, historical and civilisational identity.

On February 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the sidelines of the 53rd Munich Security Conference.

Mr Lavrov and Mr Stoltenberg discussed the current state and prospects of Russia-NATO relations, as well as a number of current issues on the international and European agendas.

The decision to increase NATO naval presence in the Black Sea is another step towards escalating tensions in the regions of vital importance for Russia. All these decisions [to increase NATO presence in the Black Sea] will be subject of thorough analysis… And, undoubtedly, we will take all necessary measures to properly safeguard Russia's national interests in this region.

We took note of yet another fit of “conspiracy theory” fever – you can’t call it otherwise – hitting the Commander of the US and NATO Forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, who claims that Russia has been supplying arms to the Taliban to undermine the US and NATO positions in Afghanistan. These groundless claims were echoed by a well-known Russophobe, Senator John McCain.

At the same time, acknowledging that the security situation in Afghanistan is truly lamentable, General Nicholson is asking Washington to send several thousand troops in addition to the existing, almost 10,000-strong, US military contingent in the IRA in the hope that this will help address current problems. He must have forgotten that there were about 100,000 US troops there not long ago who also failed to mitigate the situation.

All of this is strongly reminiscent of the futile attempts to accuse Russia of their own failures in Afghan affairs. This is likely to help him gain favour in certain circles in Washington but will hardly improve the depressing security situation in Afghanistan.

Plans [to strengthen NATO presence in the Black Sea] should be seen as another step towards confrontational agenda with Russia. Our response has already been given - it is military-technical. We are strengthening our western borders, we have announced the creation of three divisions, two have already been created. We are taking all necessary measures to ensure that our security and defence interests are firmly secured.

In January US began to deploy tank brigades in Europe, battalions have been created in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Missile defense plans are being implemented, new command structures have been established on the NATO eastern flank. There are announcements that decisions will be taken in the near future to strengthen NATO presence in the Black Sea, and until now we see no indication that these plans will be adjusted with the arrival of the new US Administration.

Of course, we are monitoring statements and first steps of the new US Administration, which I must confess give us some hope for changes in the NRC as well. However, it is impossible to ignore huge anti-Russian sentiments that have accumulated in the US elite in the recent years and will continue to poison Russia-NATO relations.

After the end of the Cold War the Alliance failed to adapt to the new reality. All unilateral interventions in defiance of the UN Security Council have led to extremely negative consequences. That is why NATO started to talk about the need to return to its original purpose - the defense against the "big enemy". The conflict in Ukraine, with Western countries holding their hand in its origins, was later used as an ideological justification for such a shift. Recent statements by the Alliance in connection with the aggravation of the situation in the Donbass indicate that NATO is not abandoning its attempts to use the conflict for geopolitical purposes.

At the Warsaw summit, NATO embarked on the path of political and military "deterrence" of Russia. Now the confrontational policy takes the shape of concrete military preparations at the Russian borders. It is clear that investments in infrastructure, marches of tanks and other columns will continue to demand an ideological and political justification.

We have proposed to NATO and the individual Allies to begin technical military discussions with the aim to address all issues related to military security and stability, particularly with a view to prevent dangerous military incidents. These proposals are still on the negotiating table. We believe that NATO will respond constructively sooner rather than later. We have proposed to the United States to negotiate amendments to the existing bilateral agreements and to define the maximum and minimum distances at which ships and aircraft of both sides may approach each other. We are still waiting for a response.

We took note of the statements by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee General Petr Pavel about the importance of establishing contacts with Russian military officials. We consider these statements as a sign of understanding by NATO that the absence of mil-to-mil dialogue is not normal. We take it as a positive signal in response to the proposals of our military to jointly look for ways to de-escalate the situation in the European security, including through a meaningful consultations on this subject. I would like to stress that these proposals remain valid.

Of course, we support such an interest. However, the suspension of a mil-to-mil dialogue was not our fault. Moreover, we should probably be talking not only about phone conversations between military officials, but also about establishing regular contacts, including at the experts' level, regular exchange of views and identifying areas for possible cooperation where there are common interests.