Question: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on August 18, in an "air interview" en route to Brussels to attend a meeting of NATO foreign ministers there, described the flights of Russian strategic aviation as a "dangerous game" and declared that "no one needs" such flights near the Alaskan coast. How could you comment on these remarks?

Commentary: This kind of statement evokes surprise, to say the least. One has the impression that the Pentagon has somehow been trying to conceal from the State Department that the Americans' own strategic aviation, unlike Russia's, not only has not interrupted the performance of its specific military tasks, but also continues to be deployed in forward basing airfields beyond US territory in different regions of the world.

As to the resumption of flights by Russian strategic aviation, we can confirm that they are being made on a scheduled basis, in strict conformity with the international norms of air flights and pose no threat whatsoever to the US or other countries. The chief thing is that such flights are being made solely in the interests of maintaining the security of Russia and in no way affect the existing world balance of power.

However, if you use the logic of the Secretary of State, it is appropriate to ask: if the training flights of our aviation are a "dangerous game," then how can the appearance of elements of a US strategic missile defense system in close proximity to the Russian borders be designated? We think that such double standards can deadlock any international problem.

At the same time, we would like to back up the logic of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who at a Pentagon briefing on August 14, when asked if it was possible to build relations with Russia on a basis of trust, clearly stated, "I have never believed that one should make national security policy on the basis of trust". According to him, it is necessary to be based on national interests only.

We expect that the American side does not deny our right to think and act in a similar vein. We also hope for an understanding of the obvious reasons that do not allow Russia to be content with the sickening assurances of Washington that the US strategic potential, persistently being brought closer to our borders, "is not directed" against Russia.

August 22, 2008