Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Alexander Grushko, Permanent Representative of Russia to NATO
Along with the political cooperation within the Russia - NATO Council
there are also cooperation programs between the military.
They are adopted annually at the level of the Russia - NATO Council
in the format of Chiefs of the General Staff.
Last year, a roadmap was adopted for military cooperation for the years 2012 - 2014.
There are many activities there that are intended for specific projects of cooperation
in areas of common interest.
I would point out first of all the naval sphere.
We have successfully conducted exercises of emergency rescue of the crews of submarines.
We have all the necessary facilities in order to assist each other.
Today, much attention is also paid to the joint operation in the Gulf of Aden to combat piracy.
The Russian Federation is working closely with all the groups that are available there,
including NATO's Ocean Shield and the EU operation "Atalanta".
We are increasing our efforts in order to make these operations more efficient.
Therefore, the military not only consider additional areas of collaboration,
which are associated with such promising areas as fuel supply for ships, communication systems,
continuity of observations and data on the marine situation in certain sea areas,
as well as air patrols.
All these elements are written in the co-operation program and will be implemented.
In addition, we are interested in promoting military cooperation,
and the Russia - NATO Council could provide the necessary impetus
to create a framework for the development of these interactions.
Russia condemns terrorist acts and terrorist attacks.
At the meeting of the Russia - NATO Council,
of course, the main focus was on what Russia - NATO Council can undertake
to combat terrorism.
Specific projects were discussed, I have already talked about them,
related to creating capacity to combat the terrorist threat.
The fact is that the NRC is not an exclusive platform
where only the issues of terrorism are discussed;
there are a lot of different problems that require attention and exchanges at ministerial level.
I want to say that, of course, the main efforts to combat terrorism
should be on universal international sites;
this is particularly true of the UN.
Nevertheless, the issue of the fight against terrorism
is one of the most important in the NATO - Russia Council.
As for the SAM "Patriot" in Turkey,
NATO leaders have said for months that Syria is not Libya,
and that the Alliance does not see its political role in the Syrian situation.
We truly believe that by far it is not necessary to demonstrate military forces;
we need the intensification of the efforts of trying to encourage all parties
to start a political process on the basis of the Geneva platform
and to create the conditions for a political solution,
because there can be no military solution, as the solution can only be the political one.
As for the placement of "Patriots", we know that various incidents occur close to the border, there are mortar attacks,
and the first question that arises is - why "Patriots" are placed,
because they are not able to fend off these threats,
the system is designed to deal with combat aircraft,
and it also has an anti-missile capability.
But, based on real-life scenarios, it is difficult to imagine
that Syria was interested in stirring up tensions in the region,
on the border with Turkey.
The second aspect which should also be kept in mind is that this is the first step,
which suggests that NATO is still involved in the conflict,
and we cannot rule out that as a result of an incident or a provocation
this involvement will only increase.
As stated by our president, we do not dispute the right of Turkey
to resort to instruments of solidarity,
but nevertheless, we believe that at this stage,
still the main efforts should be focused on finding a political settlement.
As for chemical weapons, like many other countries, we are monitoring the situation.
As soon as there are some reports that chemical weapons move somewhere,
we make appropriate inquiries, and our interlocutors,
representing the Government of Syria,
clearly state that there are no plans to use chemical weapons,
and that the chemical weapons are under control.
Recently, the Security Council has made some strong statements condemning the terrorist acts, including in Turkey,
and Russia has always initiated condemnation of terrorist attacks,
regardless of who perpetrated them.
As for Georgia, I am sure that NATO must understand the depth of the negative consequences
for European security, for regional security and for Russia - NATO relations.
Obviously, the policy of involving Georgia in NATO played a role in August 2008,
in the Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia,
which was largely due to the fact that Brussels had supported the Saakashvili regime.
So I think that our partners in the Russia - NATO Council must understand
how serious the consequences associated with a possible decision
on further steps to integrate Georgia into the alliance could be.