Three Days Before NATO's Warsaw Summit, Russian Envoy To NATO Grushko: NATO Transformed 'Central And Eastern Europe Into An Arena Of Military Confrontation'

The website of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to NATO published an interview with the mission chief, Aleksander Grushko on the Brussels meeting of NATO defense ministers between June 14-15, 2016.[1] Grushko criticized the meeting for choosing a "short-sighted" policy as expressed in the operational decisions to create and deploy four rotating multinational battalions in Eastern Europe and a brigade under division-level command in Romania. Grushko said: "Our reaction is negative, because these measures aggravate significantly the quality of regional security. In fact they transform Central and Eastern Europe into an arena of military confrontation." He stated further that from a military point of view, Russia sees no difference between a continuous rotation of forces and their permanent stationing. Grushko warned that NATO's efforts in Eastern Europe would not be left unanswered, "because they directly affect [Russia's] legitimate security interests."

Following are excerpts from Grushko's interview:[2]

Russian Permanent Representative To NATO Aleksander Grushko (Source: Missiontonato.ru)

'[NATO's] Efforts Will Not Be Left Unanswered, Because They Directly Affect Our Legitimate Security Interests'

Q: "What are your assessments of the NATO Ministers of Defense meeting?"

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 U.S. and NATO activities should be analyzed as a whole. And the battalions are not the only measures. The U.S. Army brigade will be rotating, advanced storage facilities for armaments and equipment will be created [and] numerous exercises are taking place along the Russian borders - on land, at sea and in the air. The relevant infrastructure will be further improved.

"Our reaction is negative, because these measures aggravate significantly the quality of regional security. In fact they transform Central and Eastern Europe into an arena of military confrontation. We don't need that at all. We are convinced that it is does not serve the interests of Eastern Europeans themselves. Sooner or later they will realize that by declaring themselves as 'frontline states,' they will have to bear the fruit of such frontline status. This policy is contrary to objective security needs. It is not possible to defend oneself from modern challenges and threats by constructing a new 'iron curtain.' To address them we need truly collective efforts on a broad international basis.

"Even though NATO officials claim that the measures on the eastern flank are 'proportionate,' they are well aware that those efforts will not be left unanswered, because they directly affect our legitimate security interests. They also understand that from a military point of view there is no difference for us between continuous rotation of forces and their permanent deployment prohibited by the Russia-NATO Founding Act."

Meeting of NATO Ministers of Defense (Source: Nato.int, June 15, 2016)

'The Frenzy Around [Russia's Snap Inspections] Is Needed As Another Pretext To Justify The Necessity To Strengthen The Eastern Flank'

Q: "How can you comment on the statements of NATO Secretary General that snap inspections in Russia undermine transparency and predictability? Have you had contacts with NATO on the snap inspection, which is now being held in the Russian Federation? Has the Alliance requested the information, and has it been provided by the Russian side?"

Grushko: "Snap inspections of the combat readiness of the Armed Forces are absolutely legitimate military training activities; they are in line with all existing international obligations and are recognized by the Russian military authorities as effective means of maintaining an adequate defense capability level. Although there are no relevant obligations under the [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] OSCE Vienna Document, Russia, in a spirit of good will, regularly informs countries concerned through multiple channels, including the OSCE Communications Network, about the objectives, scope and parameters of such exercises at their initial stage. Detailed briefings are given to foreign military attachés in Moscow. Before the military contacts in the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) framework were suspended, such information had been disseminated in Brussels as well. Such inspections are widely covered in the media.

"Our practice of snap inspections does not threaten anybody. The frenzy around them is needed as another pretext to justify the necessity of strengthening 'the eastern flank.' I think it would be appropriate to inquire those who are nowadays speaking about undermining transparency, why NATO nations have severely refused, for several decades - and this is not an exaggeration - to apply confidence-building measures to the naval activity, under the pretext that it did not threaten anybody. Unfortunately, the time to bridge that gap has been irreversibly lost."

'[NATO's] Support Provided To Kiev Fuels Revanchist Aspirations And The Hope For A Military Solution Of The Conflict'

Q: Are the agenda and the dates of a new NRC meeting being discussed? Is there a real chance of it taking place before the Summit?

Grushko: Consultations are going on, including on the issue of possible dates. 

Q: The ministers have approved a Comprehensive Package of Assistance for Ukraine that includes various areas of support: advisory assistance, trust funds, including on logistic support, countering improvised explosive devices, medical rehabilitation.[3] What effect can it have on the implementation of the Minsk agreements? 

Grushko: "A negative one. By its political and practical steps, NATO continues to encourage the Ukrainian authorities to further sabotage the implementation of the Minsk agreements. It is obvious that the support provided to Kiev fuels revanchist aspirations and the hope for a military solution of the conflict. What raises a particular concern is the deployment to the line of contact of Ukrainian units that have been trained by instructors from the U.S., Canada and other NATO nations. Ukrainian contingents participate more actively in NATO exercises and combat training activities. All these contradict the logic of the Minsk process, additionally complicate and exacerbate the situation in the conflict zone.

"I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that NATO 'selectively' reads the [Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine] SMM OSCE reports and singles out only what it needs to justify efforts 'to support Ukraine.' NATO representatives talk about ceasefire violations only by militia forces and for some reason are silent about the OSCE documented cases of attacks by Ukrainian armed forces (UAF) on residential areas and civilian objects, concentration of the military equipment in the 'security zone' and the absence of equipment in storages on the territory under the control of UAF. 

Q: "How do you assess the willingness of Ukraine to participate in the measures to strengthen the Alliance's presence in the Black Sea, as announced by Mr. [Minister of Defense of Ukraine Stephan] Poltorak?" 

Grushko: "We have not seen the details of NATO decisions to increase its military presence in the Black Sea, but these ideas are being discussed within the alliance. In particular, there are proposals to form a sort of a permanent naval group which would include non-regional members of NATO and partner countries.

"In our view, this idea will have an extremely negative impact on the difficult situation in the Black Sea which has been aggravated as a result of NATO increased military activity. This could further undermine the existing cooperation within the Black Sea regional cooperation formats. Serious risks of further destabilization could be associated with the U.S. attempts to explore Black Sea waters with ships equipped with 'Aegis' system, which have significant missile and attack capabilities.[4] We will follow closely NATO military activities in the region, including a possible participation in them of Ukraine and other countries. It is clear that it will not remain without our reaction with a view to ensure security of Russian southern borders."

 

Endnotes: