Transcript of Remarks and Response to Media Questions by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at Joint Press Conference with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen after the Meeting of the Participants of the Visiting Session of the RNC with President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev, Sochi, July 4, 2011

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We are pleased to host on Russian soil, in Sochi the visiting session of the Russia-NATO Council. This is the main working body of cooperation between Russia and NATO, and we consider it very important.

The RNC countries' ambassadors have just been received by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. This is an important gesture, which underscores our commitment to implement the decisions of the RNC Lisbon summit, where state leaders declared their firm intention to build a strategic partnership based on equality, indivisibility of security, mutual trust, transparency, and predictability. We strongly advocate that these declarations be consistently carried out and embodied in practical deeds.

We are for a situation in the Euro-Atlantic area where all states, regardless of whether they are members of military blocs or not, would be guaranteed equal security. This is what President Medvedev's initiative for a European Security Treaty is all about. Developments have only convinced us of the relevance of the proposal.

In the same vein, we examined the situation around the project EUROPRO, which directly concerns the level of security for the Euro-Atlantic states. We want it to be a truly collaborative project, and helpful in radically changing the rules of the game in the Russia-NATO interaction in a positive way. It would be a real step towards creating a common space of security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area. We believe it is crucial to solve a number of issues for this purpose. Above all, all participants should guarantee each other that the new system EUROPRO would not be aimed against any of its participants. We consider it important to devise a set of criteria to assess objectively the conformance of the system to its stated goal – to counter missile threats the sources of which may be located outside the Euro-Atlantic area. It is equally important to ensure equal participation of all RNC members in developing the concept and architecture of EUROPRO, and to provide for adequate transparency and confidence-building measures with respect to missile defense.

We hope that today's conversations, including our meeting with the NATO Secretary General, the RNC session, in which our Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov spoke together with me, and the meeting with the Russian President, will give additional impetus to efforts both within the Russia-NATO Council and through bilateral channels to achieve a mutually acceptable agreement.

In the context of the dialogue on current security issues the Libya problem took center stage. NATO took decision to assume responsibility for the fulfillment of UN Security Council Resolution 1973. We want to see it performed flawlessly, without any broad interpretation. Frankly, we do not see eye to eye with our NATO partners on compliance so far. We fully concur that there is no alternative to a peaceful settlement, transition toward a political process. The sooner it starts the better. This is the aim of the efforts by many mediators, primarily the African Union and UN. In response to the request expressed in Deauville by our G8 partners, Russia has now also joined mediation efforts. The Special Representative of the President of Russia is working on the same problem; the process involves the Russian Foreign Ministry. We will build on these efforts, as no one wants the present situation to continue indefinitely.

In the same context, I'll mention that an impromptu contact took place today between Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and South African President Jacob Zuma, who arrived in Sochi for talks with the head of the Russian state. During the meeting the South African leader briefed on the results of the African Union summit, which had just ended in Malabo. Zuma transmitted the proposals endorsed there to both the Russian side and NATO leadership. We will study them carefully and support everything that would help to halt the military phase of conflict and put the situation on a political path.

Today, we also examined a number of practical projects to develop our cooperation within the RNC. In areas where the interests of NATO and Russia are objectively the same, we always agree on collaboration in practice. I will note as successful lines of such cooperation the struggle against terrorism, piracy, the Afghan drug threat, and interaction in responding to natural and manmade disasters. For each of these areas there are a number of important and useful measures which are actively being implemented.

We drew colleagues' attention to the fact that for more effective cooperation on Afghanistan it is essential to forge collaboration between NATO/ISAF and CSTO, which has major potential in combating Afghan terrorism and narco-threat.

I assess the work done as positive. In today's meetings, we noted significant progress on many fronts. We frankly exchanged our approaches and assessments on the issues where we still have differences, and it is important that we heard each other. I am confident this work will continue. If the spirit of Lisbon, which many recalled today and urged to strengthen, is preserved, we can reach agreements on outstanding issues as well.

Question: In Lisbon, at the Russia-NATO summit, proposals for a sectoral missile defense system were voiced. Recently, Moscow is increasingly talking about the necessity to sign a legally binding document whereby it will be stated that EUROPRO is not aimed against Russia. Does this mean that the proposals for creating a missile defense system on a sectoral basis are no longer relevant?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: As regards the sectoral approach, President Medvedev set it out in Lisbon. The summit in the Portuguese capital ended with the decision to prepare, at the level of defense agencies of the RNC countries, a joint analysis of possible cooperation on missile defense; there have been several rounds of negotiations.

It's no secret that agreeing on a sectoral approach has proved difficult. Partners from NATO say they have a mutual defense commitment under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, and that it cannot be delegated to anyone. We took this as a reality. Nevertheless, we believe there are opportunities to reach agreements that would let us work together without creating additional risks, and to reinforce, not undermine strategic stability. For this purpose there are also military solutions, they are being discussed in fairly great detail under the auspices of the defense departments. For obvious reasons I will not go into details.

The fact remains. At this stage we are only looking for opportunities to work together on missile defense. There is the Russian General Staff military analysis showing that certain components of the US, and now the NATO system, which is planned to be placed in Europe near our borders, will pose risks for Russia's strategic nuclear forces. Therefore, we want to understand what this might mean, and why they propose just this kind of configuration. As the agreements to deploy MD elements are being concluded, and there is the increased practical activity of the warships which will represent the marine component of the future system, we want to understand, and agree in advance that this system, as said Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is not aimed against Russia. We are not asking for unilateral guarantees, but saying that all RNC members should agree that no MD activity would create risks for the defense capability of any of the participants.

Question: Could you elaborate on the outcome of the trilateral meeting between Dmitry Medvedev, Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the President of South Africa. Did they discuss the possibility of a cease-fire in Libya?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I already said about this in my opening remarks. President Zuma informed President Medvedev and NATO Secretary General Rasmussen of the results of the African Union summit and also transmitted the text of the decisions adopted there, containing specific proposals. He also said that the summit was attended by representatives of both the Libyan authorities in Tripoli and the National Transitional Council in Benghazi, who according to President Zuma will report the summit's decisions to their leaders.

In short, their essence is to find the possibilities acceptable to all negotiators for dialogue on a political settlement with the participation of delegations.

Question: How can one talk about the need to ensure the safety of the civilian population in Libya, if one of NATO's members has supplied arms to the Libyan opposition, from whose actions civilians suffered?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I have had the opportunity to comment on this information. Russia believes that the arms embargo imposed by the UN Security Council covers the whole of Libya – this is clearly written in the Security Council resolution, and any arms supplies are in breach of it. The same applies to sending instructors for the transfer of military knowledge and skills – all of this is covered by the arms embargo. This is the position of Russia, which we are openly talking about with our partners, including at today's meeting of the RNC. NATO has a different view, which is that resolution 1973 allows anyone to do anything. The two sides remain in disagreement over this issue.

Question: Could you clarify what legal guarantees Russia needs with regard to missile defense? What is your assessment based on that NATO could pose a potential threat to Russia?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I did not say that NATO is a threat to Russia. This is both widespread and deeply misleading. Despite our explanations, which for a year and a half/two years we have been giving to our partners, they periodically ask the question of why Russia considers NATO a threat, citing the new Russian Military Doctrine in the process. It has nothing like that; this document does not contain a list of threats, but of dangers for Russia. This list mentions NATO twice, but not as an organization creating a danger for Russia. We do not see the alliance as a threat.

At the same time, we consider it as a danger that the military infrastructure of NATO in the context of its enlargement is moving closer to Russian borders in spite of the agreements of 1997. In another time and in other formats we were also given assurances that the military infrastructure would not be placed in the territory of NATO's new members. As President Medvedev explained at his meeting with the permanent representatives of the NATO countries today, if military facilities appear on your borders, your military planners cannot help taking this into account.

As we recently learned from WikiLeaks materials, a plan for the defense of Poland and the Baltic states from attack by Russia was approved within NATO during the Lisbon summit. This all leads to certain thoughts. Fourteen years ago we in a joint document adopted at Summit level declared that we would not fight against each other. Therefore, when such facts become public, it raises questions that need to be clarified.

We very much appreciate the spirit of frank and comradely dialogue that prevails today in the RNC and allows us to solve the most complicated issues.

NATO is mentioned the second time in the Military Doctrine of Russia, when we say we see the danger in that NATO, making decisions about actions outside its area of responsibility, may violate international law. If this happens, we believe it is dangerous, not so much for the Russian Federation as for the existing world order, the value system approved in the UN Charter.

We perceive no other dangers. Once again – NATO is not a threat to us. The North Atlantic Alliance is our partner and we want this partnership to become strategic, as we agreed in Lisbon. We will do our best to move towards this goal, but without glossing over the problems, sometimes very serious, which remain in our relationship.