News

It is in our common interest to prevent military escalation and new arms race. These days many politicians and experts call for de-conflicting, risk reduction, more transparency in military activities. We discuss these issues with the NATO-Russia Council which has resumed its work. However, I would address these calls not to Russia, but rather to NATO countries which increase security risks by their own decisions and actions. The question is whether NATO members seriously believe that a long-term confrontation with Russia would serve NATO’s interests. It is up to NATO to decide. But sound security architecture could not be built against or without Russia. More broadly, in the current security environment no single state or a group of states can create ‘islands of security’. Common security threats demand collective efforts.

We regard the policy of including Montenegro in NATO as profoundly erroneous; it runs counter to the core interests of the people of that country and is damaging for the stability of the Balkans and Europe as a whole.

If we speak seriously and look at the facts, then we will see that there has been no progress in our relations with NATO. In particular, there has been no progress in restoring cooperation in solving common security issues.
2017 was marked by the implementation of decisions taken at the Warsaw summit. NATO is deploying additional forces to its eastern flank. There will be another four battalion groups and two US brigades, besides, depots are being set up to store military equipment enough to deploy one more brigade. They have also been stepping up their activities in the Black Sea area and in the Baltic Sea area. We have been witnessing new kinds of military activities.
There is an increasing awareness that tackling specific issues to prevent dangerous military incidents means that we can only move forward if experts join in the work. These issues are exceptionally difficult, there are many technical details so it is not going to work without military experts.

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.

How could Russia-NATO relations be constructive if the Alliance continues to act based on old schemes with the United States and their allies being focused on building up their military presence on our borders and justifying it with the need to “deter'' Russia? In fact, they impose a confrontational model of relations on us, relations based on military confrontation. We do not see any signs of the Alliance’s intention to restore practical cooperation in areas of common interest, or to move in the direction of tackling real security challenges, including regional terrorist threats.

The main focus of discussions was on military aspects of the security situation in Europe. We presented our basic assessments of NATO's enhanced forward presence on the "eastern flank". We pointed out that it weakens regional stability, and does not correspond to real security needs. Every day, we receive information about new deployments of US and allied forces and assets, as well as military infrastructure along Russian borders, exercises, marches and other military preparations. We also voiced concerns about the continued creation of the European segment of the US missile defense system, which undermines strategic stability.
All these shape new reality in military area, which we can not ignore. A confrontational agenda is imposed on us, as NATO seeks to prove its relevance. It is a dead-end path, an attempt to create dividing lines in Europe, now by military means. This can revive the arms race, which is obviously not in the interest of the European nations. For our part, we will take all necessary measures to protect our legitimate security and defense interests.

Obviously, the security climate in Euro-Atlantic area depends heavily on Russia-NATO relations, and the foundation which they were built on. Today, this foundation gives a crack due to Alliance's return to the policy of 'deterrence'. It is not Russia’s choice. The situation could be improved, if NATO reduced its military activities and deployments near the Russian borders, withdrew military forces and equipment back to their permanent locations. These steps would allow to avoid a new arms race and create conditions for a constructive dialogue.

I am convinced that the policy of confrontation with Russia is doomed to failure. It will not bring any dividends in terms of military stability, because it contains serious risks for regional and European security and to NATO countries themselves. European security can’t be built without Russia or against Russia. Only with Russia. Increasing number of politicians and experts acknowledge that. Sooner or later, NATO will have to revise fundamentally its approaches.

Valery Gerasimov attracted attention of Petr Pavel to concerns caused by significant intensification of military activity of the NATO near the Russian borders as well as deployment of forward-based systems of the Allied Forces.
General of the Army Sergei Gerasimov informed General Petr Pavel about key international events and exercise organized by the Russian defence department in 2017.
Parties confirmed necessity of mutual steps aimed to decrease tensions and to build up stabilization in Europe and agreed to continue cooperation.

We could not but notice that US service personnel, who have recently arrived in Poland and the Baltics, have already taken part in obviously anti-Russian “historical” campaigns, including a remembrance run in honour of the so-called “cursed soldiers,” members of the anti-Communist Polish resistance movement who shot Red Army soldiers in the back as they were liberating their country from Nazism. The campaign also included a “march to the East”, towards Narva, which culminated in an ostentatious photo session involving Estonian and US service personnel against the backdrop of the Ivangorod fortress on the Russian side of the border.
We firmly believe that such questionable initiatives cast a shadow on the history of the joint Soviet-US fight against Nazism, to say the least. It would be better if, instead of taking part in similar propaganda campaigns, Americans found an opportunity to honour the memory of their allies in the Anti-Hitler Coalition who were killed while liberating Europe from the Nazi scourge.