NPA, Alm.del - 2010-11 (1. samling) - Bilag 27: Optegnelser fra NATO-Rusland-mødet fra NPA-sessionen i Varna maj 2011

3.Ambassador Churovwelcomed the opportunity to exchange views on the topic andexplained that he would deliver his address in his capacity as a representative of Bulgaria.Recalling the decisions taken at the Lisbon summit, he praised the fact that relations with theRussian Federation had been reset. He went on to address the elements of the joint statement,issued in Lisbon, stressing that its main message was the unity of Europe and the joint security ofthe European states. Ambassador Churov praised the fact that the NATO-Russia Council hadresumed discussions in all areas of work, both in areas of agreement and those in whichdifferences remained. He explained that progress had been achieved on issues such ascounter-terrorism, civil emergency readiness, counter-narcotics and border control but addedthat topics such as conventional weapons, missile defense and sub-strategic weapons posedchallenges.4.As regards progress achieved, Ambassador Churov spoke of the 2008 land transitagreement with Russia and noted that fifty percent of non-lethal goods to Afghanistan weretransferred through that route, which was of significant help to the Allied effort. Furthermore, heexplained that numerous officers in ANSF had been trained in conjunction with the RussianFederation. On non-proliferation and arms control, Mr Churov noted that NATO was not adisarmament agency, but stressed that it was nevertheless an important area, which had a directbearing on the security situation in Europe and on the security of NATO member states.5.Turning to “the more sensitive part[s],” Ambassador Churov stressed that those areas had tobe addressed with more patience and noted that it was important to establish what concerns werereal and legitimate. The NATO perspective on missile defense, he stated, included two separate,individual, closely-linked and mutually-reinforcing systems. He emphasized that missile defenseshould cover the whole territory of NATO, in line with the concept of indivisible security. Heexplained that there were two avenues: the US phased-adaptive approach, which was in theprocess of execution and the second approach, which had been on the NATO agenda, and whichincluded upgrading the NATO missile defense.6.On the issue of conventional forces, Mr Churov noted that there was an agreement in placebut that agreement had never been enforced. He explained that at the next ministerial meeting, twoissues had to be addressed: first, host nation consent, i.e., no forces should be deployed withoutagreement of the host; secondly, issues of transparency and reciprocity, accompanied byacceptable levels of transparency and coordination. He stressed that a lot of efforts had beeninvested in that process but little progress had been achieved. Mr. Churov noted that theupcoming NATO-Russia would address Libya and Afghanistan. On the latter, he explained that the

transition stage had already begun and that ownership would soon be transferred to the localauthorities.7.As regards theatre missile defense, Mr. Churov praised existing co-operation and theongoing joint exercises. Referring to the newly-created working group, he argued that there wereprospects for more cooperation and a better understanding of how the different systemsfunctioned, which could lead to better inter-operability. Turning to the expert-level progress reporton missile defense, he explained that little has been achieved but there were no reasons to bedramatic. Missile defense, he explained was not an “end-game” but rather, a “game changer” andhad the potential to truly reset relations with Russia. The window of opportunity presented inLisbon remained opened, he argued.8.Expressing gratitude for the invitation to visit Russia, Ambassador Churov argued that thiswas the best political symbol indicating Russian interest in the issue. He also noted that military tomilitary co-operation had been renewed and welcomed the resumption of the NATO-Russia councilmeeting at ministerial levels.V.Presentation onNATO – Russia Cooperation after the Lisbon SummitbyH.E. Mr Dmitry Rogozin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Mission to NATO,Special Envoy for Cooperation with NATO on Missile Defence

9.Taking the floor next, Ambassador Rogozin focused his speech on missile defense which, inhis opinion, was a crucial matter of great ideological, military and technological value and whichconstituted the major project on the docket of the NATO-Russia Council. The final objective of thispartnership, argued Rogozin, was to reach a strategic partnership between the Russian Federationand Western countries and to overcome the historical divides of the 20thcentury. He pointed outthat Russia was a European state which wanted to be part of “single Europe” and stressed that thedecisions taken at Lisbon were of great strategic importance. In that context, Ambassador Rogozinunderscored the attention given to missile defense by the Russian President and the Russianpolitical class.10. Turning to the contemporary threats facing the international community,Ambassador Rogozin pointed out Russian skepticism regarding the “realities of missile threats,”arguing that the long-feared challenges had not turned into impending dangers. He noted that Irandid not have the capacity to develop inter-continental missiles and explained that for a country todevelop such, it had to span on a huge territory in order to conduct the requisite tests, adding thatonly five countries—the United States, the Russian Federation, China, the United Kingdom andFrance, but not Iran, had such a potential.11. Turning to the specifics of missile-defense, Ambassador Rogozin stressed that it was NATOthat had invited Russia in a joint project for the development of common defense and expressedRussia’s consternation upon discovering that, in fact, two separate systems were being planned. Ineffect, he argued, Russia had been invited to develop its own missile defense system. Moreover,Rogozin claimed that Europe could not develop such a capacity but would rather “hide behind theAmericans” who would develop the system but situate it in Europe. Rogozin expressed furtherconsternation for the fact that the interception capacity was planned to cover the northern regionsof Europe, near the Russian border, when, according to him, the threats were likely to originatefrom the south. He argued that the interception of ballistic missiles should be done close to theorigins of a potential missile launch and thus, they had to be placed in the south. While articulatingserious concern regarding phases 3-4 of the US plans for missile defense, Ambassador Rogozinargued that NATO had no right or place to be ensuring Russian security or to be encroaching onRussian territory. He requested legal and binding guarantees that the shield would not be targetedagainst Russia. The criteria for such guarantees, he added, should include the territorial range and

speed of interception, in order to provide assurances that the interceptors would be aiming athypothetical threat states and not at Russia.12. Finally, Ambassador Rogozin maintained that the Russian Federation had the capability andthe requisite armed forces to intercept any potential threats, adding that any anti-missile systemhad to be under national control. He expressed that Russia did not want to share its system withNATO and understood well NATO’s unwillingness to share with non-NATO members. However, heargued that the means used in their respective anti-missile systems could be shared. Thus, heelaborated that launches could be jointly identified and tracked, which would give it greateraccuracy. Stating that Russia had the potential and the ability to establish a single systemalongside with NATO, Rogozin went to explain why devising two separate systems would be bad.He explained that the Russian system would, by default, identify a missile launch and aninterceptor in the same way and thus the Russian leadership would conclude it is an attack or asign of war. Instead, connecting separate defenses under a single system, he maintained, wouldremove such risks and would make the world a safer place. Finally, Mr Rogozin concluded bystressing that Russia wanted a legitimate relationship with NATO.VI.Discussion

13. The discussion began with Sir Menzies Campbell (United Kingdom) voicing hisdisappointment with Ambassador Rogozin not mentioning issues of dispute, such as Abkhazia andSouth Ossetia.Lord Jopling(United Kingdom) joined his colleague’s disappointment andemphasized that such disagreements should be openly discussed. Lord Jopling also reminded themembers that the NATO PA had previously passed a very critical report on Russia and its relationto these territories. He characterized Russia’s behavior as ‘neocolonial’ and asked the speaker toexplain his country’s behavior. In reaction to the British MPs comments, Mrs Spiska (Russia)suggested that at the next meeting the NATO PA can invite representatives dealing with the issuesof Caucasus who can discuss these issues with the Assembly. She, however, emphasized thatRussia does not want to get involved in another Cold War. Following Mrs Spiska’s comments,Ambassador Rogozin denied that discourse on the Caucasus was a taboo for Russia. He alsosuggested that the Assembly should not devote this much time to issues of territorial sovereigntysince it failed to recognize the importance of sovereignty in the case of Serbia. AmbassadorChurov also contributed to this debate and emphasized that NATO does not recognize these newentities. In addition to that he pointed out that negotiations taking place in Geneva need to continueand that all partners need to be constructive and patient.14. On the issue of Iran, Sir Menzies Campbell andSergio De Gregorio(Italy) questionedAmbassador Rogozin’s confidence about Iran not having sufficient capability to launch an attack.Both of the speakers also maintained that their countries do consider Iran a threat – bothconventional and nuclear. Sergio De Gregorio also mentioned that some Iranian representativeshave expressed interest in discussing this issue with the NATO PA. In his reaction to thesecomments, Ambassador Rogozin argued that even if Iran had nuclear weapons and missiles thatcould reach Europe then it is not the means, the missiles, which we should worry about, but rathertheir nuclear potential. He also pointed out that the Iranian leadership does not want to use theseweapons as an offensive tool but has developed them for defensive purposes.15. Further on, US domination of the anti-missile system became a matter of debate. MPCampbell argued that Europe is not hiding behind the US, but that the US’s centrality to Europeansecurity is undeniable. In a further debate on this issue, however, Ambassador Rogozin maintainedthat the anti-missile shield will indeed not be a NATO, but an American project. He continued byexplaining that the US will be in charge of operating the system and that an American commanderwill be put in charge of the system. Also, he stressed, that the US will make profit from this systembecause it will not be Europe but the US who will supply its technology for the project. So Europewill not profit from this project financially.

16. Subsequently,Petras Austrevicius(Lithuania) raised the issue of tactical nuclear weaponsand the way this issue has been addressed by both NATO and Russia. In his answer, AmbassadorRogozin pointed out that the US has deployed its nuclear weapons all around Europe. Russia alsohas such weapons but has decided to deactivate them. So far, the US has not taken their weaponsfrom alert. When this happens, then Russia will start talking about disarmament.17. NATO-Russia co-operation became another issue discussed at the meeting. The formerPresident of the NATO PA,Loïc Bouvard(France) inquired about how different NATO’s andRussia’s perceptions of the anti-missile shield really are. He also pointed out that NATO memberstates from Eastern Europe feel deep mistrust towards Russia and would not welcome the idea ofhaving Russia responsible for their defense. In reaction to these questions, Ambassador Rogozinexplained that the anti-missile defense shield is essentially made of high-precision missiles, whichcan be both offensive as well as defensive and it is due to their potential use as offensive weaponsthat Russia refuses accept their placement on its boarders. Nevertheless, Ambassador Rogozinexpressed his belief that these differences can be overcome. He also pointed out that there aresubstantial differences of opinion also among European NATO members on the missile defensesystem (for example the French do not want to implement this system because they prefer usingtheir own nuclear potential to protect themselves). Finally on this point, Ambassador Rogozinexpressed Russia’s interest in participating in this project, but only if all parties are serious about it.Since the system cannot be tested (except for having an all-out war) it is essentially a political andideological project. Subsequently, Ambassador Churov challenged Ambassador Rogozin’sremarks concerning the fragmentation of European attitudes towards the anti-missile defenseshield. He explained that at the Lisbon Summit, all 28 NATO member countries decided to be apart of the system.18. Loïc Bouvard also inquired about Russia’s potential membership in NATO despite the twoparties having to face common threats. In response to these questions, Ambassador Rogozinemphasized that NATO is a useful organisation for defence co-ordination. Nevertheless, heasserted that Russia’s membership in the organization is not very probable due to two reasons:probably not too many NATO members would be prepared to accept Russia as a member and, atthe same time, Russia would not want to restrain itself and bind itself to an Alliance of this sort. Itwould also disagree and not participate in some of NATO’s operation, such as the ones inAfghanistan or Libya.19. In the following question, Mrs Nibak (Norway) inquired about NATO-Russia cooperation oncounter-terrorism following the assassination of Osama bin Laden. In his reaction, AmbassadorRogozin emphasized that killing Osama bin Laden does not mean that our fight against terrorism isover. In his opinion, by the time Bin Laden had been killed, he had no longer served as theoperational head of al-Qaeda. Russia views this development positively and also appreciated thefact that the US included the name of a Northern Caucasus leader into the terrorist list. He alsopointed out that in July there will be a NATO-Russia meeting in Sochi where the parties will discusstechnical cooperation in respect to counter-terrorism, spotting and neutralizing suicide bombers, aswell as other issues. He also mentioned Afghanistan as another area of close co-operatingbetween Russia and NATO. Russia recognizes the fact that threats coming from this region havean effect on all international players. Thus, Russia has agreed with NATO to transport a widerarray of good to/from Afghanistan. Russia is also training Afghan military cadets and providingmilitary components for the Afghan Army. This cooperation is a result of agreements reachedwithin the NATO-Russia Council.20. Finally,Mr Agov(Bulgaria) raised the issue of Russia building a military basis and placingmissiles in the Black Sea region. Bulgaria expressed its concern about this issue especially in thelight of Russia having “walked out” from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. TheBulgarian member also inquired whether there is a possibility of renegotiating this treaty in the