"I think that this is a recognition that the project dubbed ‘isolation of Russia’ failed. It is evident that without Russia it is impossible to solve or regulate any international problem".
“We do not have a positive agenda today, have no projects that would have allowed us to return to improving relations in the spheres of common interests. NATO made a decision to take our relations from partnership to deterrence".
"NATO countries realize that they can’t keep isolating themselves from real processes in the sphere of security.This plays against the interests of not only global security, but also the alliance itself".
"Russia is not against holding a new meeting of the Russia-NATO Council, but only when there is a real agenda."
Situation in Afghanistan "was the third issue on the agenda of today’s meeting. From the point of view of threats to security, it was a very important exchange of information both for Russia and NATO. We received very serious signals from the Alliance that Afghanistan remains one of the key issues on the NATO agenda. The same refers to Russia. We are strongly concerned about the development of the situation in that country, be it in security or in social-economic sphere, and we intend to do all we can, including with the use of instruments of collective security to protect our interests, as well as the borders of Tajikistan and other countries of Central Asia with Afghanistan in order to bar extremism from their territory, especially as the terrorist organization Islamic State is spreading".
From what we have heard during the NRC we make two conclusions: on the one hand, all NRC members agreed that in recent years the situation in the area of military security has considerably worsened and the risks related to the military activity increased. At the same time it is obvious that Russia and NATO countries have different views on the root causes of the degraded situation and ways to reduce the danger. We pointed out that NATO's decision under the pretext of the Ukrainian crisis dramatically worsened the situation in Europe.
There was a pivot in the policy and military planning to the schemes of comprehensive deterrence of our country; NATO members have significantly intensified their military activity near the Russian borders, specifically, in the CEE region and the Baltic countries, which in terms of the classical military threats have always been the quietest. Instead of reducing the tension and intensifying, in these conditions, a professional military-to-military dialogue, NATO countries suspended it. At the same time, a discrediting campaign of the legitimate activities of the Russian Armed Forces was unleashed.
We have frankly pointed out to NATO members that the root cause of the deterioration of the European security is not in the lack of confidence- and security-building measures, but in the shift of NATO to the policies and military planning based on confrontational schemes. Transparency measures are intended, first of all, to build trust. However, it cannot be built in the conditions of strong pressure on us, the policy of sanctions and suspended military cooperation. If the root causes of tension are not eliminated, the Allies' ideas to modernize the Vienna Document would be difficult to interpret other than an attempt to certify, through CSBM mechanisms, the increased military activity of NATO along the Russian borders. To pursue a policy of deterrence and to talk about confidence-building measures are the things hardly compatible.
At the same time, we have confirmed our openness to talk about measures to prevent dangerous military incidents on a bilateral basis with individual NATO countries that are really interested in this discussion; however we cannot look indifferently at the military footholds and capabilities formed along our borders. We will take all necessary measures to secure our borders.
We also discussed the situation in Afghanistan. Obviously, the situation in the country has been degrading. We see two trends: intensification of the Taliban, on the one hand, and the overflow of ISIL-affiliated militants, on the other. The Taliban has proved that it can conduct operations in any part of the country with the involvement of large forces. The expansion of influence and the growing number of ISIL members in Afghanistan raise concern. ISIL is trying to gain a foothold in the north of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which may affect the situation in Central Asia. Unfortunately, NATO remains deaf to our calls to intensify efforts in combating the Afghan drug trafficking, although it is well known that drug production continues to provide substantial financial "recharge" to the armed opposition.
The cornerstone of stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan is in the combat-capable and self-sufficient Afghan security forces. In the meantime ANSF units suffer heavy casualties and are unable to effectively deter the pressure of the Taliban. There is a high degree of desertion. We assume that NATO and the United States as the main supplier of military personnel to the Resolute Support Mission have a special responsibility for training the Afghan forces and the security situation.
Of course, we do not consider Afghanistan as an isolated issue from the processes going on in the Middle East and North Africa. Irresponsible geopolitical engineering in the region, in which the NATO countries also took part, led to the destruction of traditional mechanisms of governance and security, uncontrolled spread of arms in the region, provoked a splash of radicalization and, as a result, military activity of terrorists and extremists, such as ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra.
Today it is obvious that NATO's decision to suspend practical cooperation, including the helicopter and anti-drug projects, CAI initiative and STANDEX had a negative impact on the security of all NRC members, affected the interests of the Europeans themselves. In fact, it was another missed opportunity to jointly confront common challenges.
We expressed concern about the deteriorating situation in the south-east Ukraine, continuing violations of the ceasefire. We also informed about the facts, documented by the OSCE SMM, of the use of heavy weapons by the Ukrainian armed forces, indiscriminate firing of militia, the capture of settlements in the gray zone, the absence of military equipment subject to withdrawal at the storage sites of the Ukrainian military forces.
More active patrols by SMM observers of the security zone, vulnerable areas of the contact line, storage sites for military equipment and armaments subject to withdrawal and the creation of demilitarized zones could help alleviate tensions.
The discussion revealed different understandings of what it means to implement the Minsk agreements strictly, consistently and fully. The Minsk agreements themselves are very clear and do not contain any ambiguities. Their key provision is the need for direct dialogue between Kiev and the DPR and LPR representatives on all settlement issues. It is kept quiet.
It is evident that the Kiev authorities continue to impose their interpretation of the Minsk agreements which has nothing to do with what has been agreed and approved. They did not adopt a law prohibiting the prosecution and punishment of the persons involved in the events in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. They are evading under various pretexts to provide Donbas with the special status which would be legislatively fixed on a permanent basis. They have not adopted relevant amendments to the Constitution. The modalities for local elections are being agreed upon with a lot of efforts with Kiev putting forward conditions unacceptable for the Donbas representatives.
We called on all NRC members to use their influence on Ukrainian authorities and convince them to abandon the use of force in crisis resolution and fully implement political commitments. We indicated that by providing political and military support to Kiev, the Alliance plays into the hands of the «party of war» which still counts to resolve the crisis in Donbas by military means. We are particularly concerned about the fact that the Ukrainian armed forces trained by instructors from the United States, Canada and other NATO countries, are being deployed to the contact line.
We also pointed to the facts of gross human rights violations and crimes committed by the Ukrainian armed forces, intelligence services and extremists, the unwillingness of Kiev to conduct a proper investigation of crimes committed on the Maidan, in Odessa and Mariupol. The financial, transport and social and economic blockade of Donbas is absolutely unacceptable. We drew attention to the attacks on the Russian diplomatic missions in Ukraine. We also reported about a large-scale humanitarian aid provided by Russia to the affected population of Donbas.
On a positive note, everybody recognized that the Ukrainian crisis can be resolved only by political means on the basis of the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. There is no military solution. However the question remains, whether there is a will to promote this understanding not just by words, but also by deeds.