News

14 july 2016
The main feature of this NRC meeting was that military representatives took part in it for the first time after a long break. The conversation was open and frank: it was focused, mainly, on the consequences of NATO decisions to increase its military capabilities and military activity on the Eastern flank for the European and regional security. We consider these measures groundless, excessive and counterproductive. They are of a confrontational nature, they weaken European and regional security, bring us back to the Cold war schemes of ensuring security. Russia does not pose a threat to the members of the Alliance. We are not interested in the confrontational model of coexistence imposed on us. It contradicts fundamental security interests of the Europeans and the goals of shaping the European security without “dividing lines”. NATO is not adapting to a new security environment, but, in fact, by its decisions is creating such a new environment, forcing us, by its actions, to adapt our military posture to this new security situation. It is, by no means, our choice. But we certainly will do our best to ensure our security.
11 july 2016
"NATO should be aware that the counterbalancing operation will require steps to create the balance we used to have before NATO’s attempts to create a counter potential at the borders that are now already NATO’s borders".
"Indeed, these decisions do not match [the Russia-NATO Founding Act]. "We are dealing with a significant change in the military-political situation. There is no parity of forces which used to exist before all the latest NATO preparations".
"Four battalions are only part of NATO efforts, which also include a US initiative of building confidence in Europe".
07 july 2016
- French Minister of foreign affairs Jean-Marc Ayrault promised last week to make efforts to prevent aggravated confrontation with Russia during the summit. What are your forecasts for the summit in Warsaw?
Alexander Grushko: Making forecasts is a thankless task. Judging by our perceptions and the analysis of the information that we have, no qualitatively new decisions are coming in Warsaw. I am talking about the overall philosophy of relations with Russia. As of today it is based on two premises. First - the need to strengthen defence with a view to deter Russia. Second - to keep the channels of political dialogue open.
17 june 2016
Q: What are your assessments of the NATO Ministers of Defence meeting?

A.Grushko: There have been no surprises. The meeting confirmed that the alliance has opted for a short-sighted policy. We witness a myth-based policy towards Russia aimed at countering the so-called Russian threat through deterrence, which takes shape in the form of military planning and activities.

That’s exactly in this particular context that we assess the decisions to create and deploy four multinational battalions in the Eastern Europe and a brigade under division-level command in Romania. Whatever insignificant NATO officials might call these measures, from a purely military perspective the US and NATO activities should be analyzed as a whole. And the battalions are not the only measures.
30 may 2016
Russia Direct: What are the consequences of the first meeting of the Russia-NATO Council after such a long break?
Alexander Grushko: I would not overestimate the results of this meeting and make long-term projections. It was useful to meet and talk – there has not been such a meeting for almost two years. It was a good opportunity to discuss in-depth key problems of European security. So, it is a positive factor as such.
RD: But is it correct to say that, in concrete terms, nothing followed – you met, made statements that no progress was achieved and that’s it?
A.G.: The main problem today is not whether meetings take place or not, but that NATO has suspended all cooperation with Russia. We used to work together on a whole range of projects that strengthened in real terms the security of the countries involved. Today we have no positive agenda and I do not see that NATO would be ready to reconsider its current policy.
30 may 2016
"What we are seeing today in the Baltic states, as a matter of fact, is nothing but attempts towards force development with the hostile policy pursued by NATO in the recent time. I would not say that it is a direct threat for Russia nut, nevertheless, it obviously creates serious risks as we see an absolutely new military reality forming along our border".
"Recently the [NATO] secretary general visited Poland, and during these visits the Polish side was making statements that now Russia knows that an attack against Poland is an attack against NATO, which is completely absurd, as they are discussing the problem that does not exist".
"The policy (of NATO) lives in surrealistic reality, and the most dangerous thing is that it now starts taking shape of military planning and military preparations carried out on territories along our borders".
25 may 2016
"The quality of security in Europe will ultimately depend not only on how we will manage to decrease military tensions between NATO and Russia, but also on how we manage to organize cooperation in the fight against common security threats. Here the situation looks more promising, because pragmatic interests persist and despite all attempts to use organizations like NATO as an instrument to isolate Russia, cooperation on key security challenges is developing in other formats – the Quartet on the Middle East, the International Syria Support Group and the Normandy Format, etc. Countries that take part in such efforts, which are ready to cooperate with the Russian Federation on a truly collective basis, with respect to our legitimate security interests, should probably retune the policy of the organizations, in which they participate – I mean here not only NATO, but also the European Union"
12 may 2016
“Activation” of the US BMD base in Romania should not be considered in isolation, but in conjunction with other actions of the US and NATO that have negative consequences for strategic stability and international security.
In particular, one should take into account the whole complexity of the US efforts to create a global BMD system, including its active and partly mobile European segment. Beside ground-based Aegis Ashore sites the latter also involves sea-based BMD platforms which are now actively trying to “find feet” in sea basins adjacent to Russia.
We can not ignore the strategic interrelationship between the American BMD project and the so called Prompt Global Strike program as well as Washington's aspiration to retain the greatest degree of latitude as regards possible weaponization of space. In addition, the deployment of multifunctional Mk-41 launchers at Aegis Ashore sites, which are capable of launching intermediate-range missiles, gravely undermines the INF Treaty.
27 april 2016
Mr Shoigu,

Colleagues,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

The Moscow Conference on International Security has become traditional. This is the fifth such conference and it has brought together a representative body of participants, something that makes it possible to hold an in depth professional discussion on challenges to global and regional security.

Regrettably, the modern world has not received a clean bill of health from politicians and experts, and the news is more and more discouraging from year to year. The same can be said about the growth of the potential for conflict in international relations, the faltering of anti-crisis mechanisms and the destabilising processes that are engulfing regions that only recently were considered entirely safe. In this environment, Russia never tires of calling for a serious discussion oriented towards solving common strategic problems. We hope that the discussions at this venue will be steeped precisely in this spirit.
20 april 2016
After a nearly two-year-long pause and upon the suggestion of the alliance, the Russia-NATO Council (RNC) met at the level of permanent representatives in Brussels on April 20.

The participants discussed in detail the Ukraine crisis as they emphasised the need for a full, phased-in implementation of the Minsk agreements, the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, regional terrorist threats, and risks arising from the unprecedented build-up by NATO of its military activities and infrastructure in the regions that border Russia.