18 January 2017
We took note of the statements by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee General Petr Pavel about the importance of establishing contacts with Russian military officials. We consider these statements as a sign of understanding by NATO that the absence of mil-to-mil dialogue is not normal. We take it as a positive signal in response to the proposals of our military to jointly look for ways to de-escalate the situation in the European security, including through a meaningful consultations on this subject. I would like to stress that these proposals remain valid.

Of course, we support such an interest. However, the suspension of a mil-to-mil dialogue was not our fault. Moreover, we should probably be talking not only about phone conversations between military officials, but also about establishing regular contacts, including at the experts' level, regular exchange of views and identifying areas for possible cooperation where there are common interests.
30 December 2016
2016 year was difficult and turbulent. It is obvious that the world stands on the threshold of major changes- many factors intertwine in the global security equation, conflict potential grows, the very nature of threats changes. But there are more signs of awareness that no one, not a single country can cope alone with challenges that are truly transnational and cross-border. First of all, this refers to the threat of terrorism, the tragic consequences of which many countries, including Russia, have experienced.

Unfortunately, negative factors are accumulating in the area of the European security. I refer, above all, to the continued strengthening of the NATO eastern flank, unjustified deployment of forces and equipment of the United States and its allies, build-up of military infrastructure near Russia's borders. It is obvious that this military activity weakens regional security, forces us to take compensating measures.
15 September 2016
Indeed, at today's meeting with NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow we received an oral reply to the proposals that our military representatives presented at the NRC meeting on July 13 on risk-reduction measures in the military field. This reply will be thoroughly studied, including with a view to determine the strategy for further possible actions.
Public comments on the matter are unlikely to make any difference at this point. We intend to act in accordance with a common diplomatic practice.
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".
7 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"
1 2 3 4 5 Next