News

On April 12, the US Department of State submitted to Congress its annual Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments. As usual, Washington reported on the United States’ model adherence to and compliance with all its commitments while posing as a self-appointed teacher charged with assessing other countries’ behaviour in this respect.

Even a cursory analysis of the report shows that it is not a serious document that reflects the real state of affairs in arms control and disarmament.

The US Department of State has again showered Russia with unsubstantiated accusations. The assessments provided in the report are judgmental, biased and prejudiced. They are comprised of a combination of speculation, exaggeration, false messages and openly distorted facts. The obvious goal is to create a negative image of Russia in the hope that few readers will take the trouble to analyse the details of the unsubstantiated examples of Russia’s alleged violations. When compared to the real state of affairs, the US Department of State’s assessments present a sad picture of these “expert” assessments.

Question: Can you comment on NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s words that a Russia-NATO Council meeting will be held at the ambassadorial level in the next two weeks?

Maria Zakharova: It’s true that Brussels has proposed holding a Russia-NATO Council meeting at the ambassadorial level almost two years after NATO decided to curtail systemic political dialogue and suspend all practical cooperation with Russia. The meeting will be held soon.

The main issues on the coordinated agenda are the crisis in and around Ukraine and the need to fully implement the Minsk Agreements, the security situation in Afghanistan and regional terrorism threats.

-How does Russia assess the US intention to deploy in Eastern Europe another armored brigade?
Amb.Grushko: We need to have a look at how these intentions will be materialized. We will assess these plans not only in terms of what the US can further deploy on the eastern flank, but together with the measures already taken.
If we speak about a new pattern of force deployment on the eastern periphery of NATO, we witness a qualitative change in the very configuration of this presence and the significant deterioration of the situation in the military sphere.
Today constant rotation of the US forces is carried out in six Eastern European countries, exercises are held on a regular basis with the participation of both the US and European contingents. Naval forces in the Baltics are reinforced. Storages for equipment are created; this equipment is used by rotational units during joint exercises with national contingents. The improvement of infrastructure for new reinforcement troops is taking place. The air military activity has increased along our borders. The number of reconnaissance flights has increased manyfold. There are talks about possible reinforcement of the military presence in the Black Sea region.

Russia will not passively watch the US military build-up in Europe and will give an asymmetrical response to it. We are not passive observers, we consistently take all the military measures we consider necessary in order to counterbalance this reinforced presence that is not justified by anything. Certainly, we’ll respond totally asymmetrically.
There are grounds to assume that NATO will continue a course, which was generally outlined at the Wales summit. It provides for considerably strengthening NATO’s ‘eastern flank’ alongside with maintaining the channels of conducting a dialogue with Russia on questions of mutual interest.
We see that the United States continues to reinforce its military presence in Europe. However, the situation in the sphere of security forces NATO to look to the south as it is there where the real threat is being formed, so I expect that the measures for reinforcing the Alliance’s southern frontiers will be announced in Warsaw at the NATO summit.

Many in the West tend to blame Russia for the current crisis, for its assertive behaviour and growing global ambitions. They claim that the West has done its utmost to promote genuine partnership, but that Moscow has been reluctant to cooperate and should be punished for its independent policy in international affairs. “Hybrid warfare” – to use the NATO terminology – has been waged against Russia with a combination of economic sanctions, military pressure through the NATO military build-up on the “eastern flank” and rigorous and demonising anti-Russian propaganda.

Many in the West tend to blame Russia for the current crisis, for assertive behavior and growing global ambitions. They claim that the West has done its utmost to promote genuine partnership, but Moscow was reluctant to cooperate and should be punished for an independent policy in international affairs. A «hybrid warfare» – to use NATO terminology - has been used against Russia with the combination of economic sanctions, military pressure through NATO military build-up on the «eastern flank» and a rigorous, demonizing anti-Russian propaganda.
This simplistic, ideologically driven approach – «who is not with us is against us» - ignores the fact that the history of the Russian foreign policy after the Cold War is the history of tremendous efforts to build a collective security system that would protect all members of the Euro-Atlantic region. Russia made a crucial contribution to the elimination of the legacy of the confrontation era by committing to withdraw troops and armaments from Germany, Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries. After joining the Council of Europe in 1996 we invested a lot in this organization with a view to create a single legal space in Europe.

Many of alliance representatives I’ve talked to confessed that the events in Ukraine have been used as a means to overcome NATO’s identity crisis.The speed at which NATO made a turn and ceased all practical cooperation with Russia, shifting military planning attention to countering the so-called threats from the East demonstrates that the alliance has been pedaling its own agenda from the start.
This is testified to by the latest statements that we’ve been hearing from the alliance”. “Politically, NATO is engaged in building a new ‘iron curtain’ in Europe.
Ambassador Grushko outlined two factors that define Russian-NATO relations. First, the alliance’s containment policy backed by its military buildup, which represents a real threat to Moscow’s interests. Second, NATO effectively breaking off all practical cooperation with Russia.

The Wall Street Journal spoke with Alexander Grushko, Russia’s ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, at the Munich Security Conference to discuss the alliance’s push for dialogue, Moscow’s views of Western troops in Poland and the Baltic States, and other issues.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said the world was fighting a new Cold War. Why does Russia believe that?

It is what we see now. NATO is moving in the direction of providing security in line with the old scheme, in place of seeking ways to broaden cooperation with Russia on a number of pressing security issues, like, for example, Afghanistan, terrorism, instability in many places in the world.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said the world was fighting a new Cold War. Why does Russia believe that?

It is what we see now. NATO is moving in the direction of providing security in line with the old scheme, in place of seeking ways to broaden cooperation with Russia on a number of pressing security issues, like, for example, Afghanistan, terrorism, instability in many places in the world.
I would like to remind you we had a number of very important projects in the NATO Russia Council. That was an important contribution to international efforts to deal with some pressing security issues like drug trafficking in Afghanistan. Also we were working very hard on projects to enhance air capability of Afghanistan’s military force…I could continue. But now, as we see it, the main focus is how to deter Russia. Not only politically, but also by military means…This mix of military planning and policy is a dangerous trend. This is not our choice. We strongly believe we should continue on the path of building a new Europe.