Interview by Permanent Representative to NATO Alexander Grushko with the Kommersant FM radio station, February 13, 2015

Alexander Grushko: Let me start by saying that as of today our relations are close to the freezing point. First, cooperation almost ceased in all the areas which were viewed by both NATO and Russia as crucial for ensuring common security. These areas are well-known: above all, they consist of current threats and challenges, the situation in Afghanistan – which, by the way, is not improving with the withdrawal of ISAF and the launch of NATO's new operation, Resolute Support – as well as combatting piracy and terrorism. NATO currently displays great concern over the developments in the vast region of the Middle East and North Africa, and in Sahel, where the state control has disappeared and terrorist and extremist gangs and groups reign, as well as a number of other areas where joint efforts by NATO and the EU create added value for our security and the security of people. Second, military dialogue has been suspended. As of today, the relations between Russia and NATO boil down to political dialogue through Russia's mission to NATO and on the ministerial level.

Question: This means that you are de facto the person who embodies this relationship?

Alexander Grushko: Yes.

Question: In his interview, Jens Stoltenberg mentioned a number of things, but here's a question for you. I asked Mr Stoltenberg, what is Russia for NATO today? But what is NATO for Russia? Not a friend, probably, not in this situation. But what: a partner, an enemy?

Alexander Grushko: It's hard to say, but here's what I can tell you. Of course, Russia has regarded NATO as a major military-political factor not only in Europe, but also in the Euro-Atlantic space and in the world. The fact that this is factored in Russia's military planning did not go unnoticed for NATO. Naturally, we also took into account NATO's global ambitions, along with the fact that NATO was ready to go beyond international law, which was demonstrated in 1999 when Yugoslavia was bombed, and during air strikes against Libya, which did not fall within the scope of the UN Security Council resolution.

For these reasons, we didn't have any illusions regarding the dangers that might be caused by NATO if it goes in the wrong direction. On the other hand, we worked together absolutely honestly, openly and pragmatically in the areas of common interest. Our approach was to bring together various international bodies to deliver on our common objectives. It has become increasingly apparent in recent years that the quality of the European and Euro-Atlantic architecture will, to a large extent, depend on the ability of all countries and all actors, to use a modern word, to work together on external issues, that is to join efforts in addressing the issues we are facing. That said, the principle of indivisibility of security, equality and legitimate interests must be respected.

Question: These objectives are not being addressed at present, since, as you have said, cooperation is limited to contacts between Russia's mission to NATO and its headquarters. There is even a feeling in the air that NATO has gone back to its normal state regarding what has happened in Ukraine. After withdrawing from Afghanistan, as you have said, there was the feeling that the Alliance was weakened by the failure to deliver on its objective. But now, NATO representatives are talking about what's happening out there in Moscow, across the border. It feels like NATO has found a new meaning of life. Maybe it has all played out against us, against Russia?

Alexander Grushko: I wouldn't reduce the processes NATO is currently undergoing to the developments in Ukraine. First, the role played by NATO in Ukraine was and remains quite improper. If we recall how it all started, NATO made a number of statements, among other things, calling on the Ukrainian military not to intervene in domestic affairs, to stay in the barracks, remain above the political fray, politically neutral. But once the situation changed, and the new regime came to power, all these calls evaporated. What NATO is trying to do now is portray Russia as a party to the conflict. It is for this reason that the subject of the presence of Russia's military personnel, equipment, instructors, and so on is in the centre of all NATO's statements. They are still speaking about it today. But the key thing is that this shift started earlier.

As a matter of fact, NATO has grown tired of major operations. If we take an impartial look at NATO's activities after the end of the Cold War, this was the time of interventions. NATO's arrival or intervention has never made things better. We now have a divided Yugoslavia, and a Libya that could burst into pieces at any moment or become yet another territory devoid of state institutions. The situation is very alarming in Afghanistan and even NATO acknowledges this. Finally, NATO had to face a major issue: What should it actually do? By that time, it was already decided that NATO would shift from major operations to focusing on new challenges and threats. Since Afghanistan was about to lose its role as a huge training range, NATO thought about increasing the number of military exercises, enhancing compatibility, increasing military spending, etc.

Question: I see. NATO is concentrating.

Alexander Grushko: Yes it is. The most important thing is that the Ukrainian crisis was used as a catalyst, as stated by some former NATO officials. I attended several political science conferences, where some speakers said if the Ukrainian crisis had not happened, it would have needed to be devised.

Question: Are the actually frozen NATO-Russia relations good or bad for Russia's security?

Alexander Grushko: Of course, contacts should be maintained to promote Russia's security. Incidentally, NATO's military and civilian leaders have actually admitted that the decision to discontinue military contacts was a mistake. Both Breedlove and the Chairman of NATO Military Committee, Gen. Bartels, said that in a situation where the risk of unintentional military incidents was growing, it was necessary to maintain a dialogue to ward off these incidents. The most important thing is to preclude the wrong interpretation of each other's military intentions.

Question: When you speak with NATO HQ employees, they say, yes, we should maintain contacts, because Russian aircraft are flying over the Baltic Sea with switched-off friend-or-foe systems. Yes, this seems necessary, but it turns out that Russia is also to blame for this happening. They've apparently adopted this approach: yes, contacts are necessary, but only because you are behaving in this way. Jens Stoltenberg told the Munich Security Conference that NATO was ready to resume contacts and reach the former level of cooperation with Russia, provided Russia wanted this too. Was this just a figure of speech or a real intention? How would you comment on this?

Alexander Grushko: First, Russia has never walked out of anything. On April 1, 2014, NATO approved the decision to discontinue all contacts. All contacts! We haven't stopped anything. I can say that on March 31 we were working on a number of projects, including the first Russia-NATO Council joint operation to ensure the safe elimination of Syrian chemical weapons. This is just an example. This should have been a real contribution to a common mission. The ball, therefore, is in NATO's court. If NATO comes to the conclusion that cooperation in certain areas will add security to Russia and the entire Euro-Atlantic alliance, we will certainly consider this. But it's also clear that NATO has been adopting rather arrogant schemes to ensure its security, as we can see on the eastern flank. I am referring to the implementation of the plan of action to enhance readiness and deployments.

Question: Do you mean the six centres?Alexander Grushko: The continuous rotation of US forces, an increase in the number of military exercises, an effectively permanent presence of naval task forces in the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, and air patrols in the Baltic countries. In 2004, there was not a single aircraft, and it didn't occur to anyone to patrol anything.

Question: But this isn't the first year they are sending air patrols.

Alexander Grushko: Yes, there are 18 or 20 aircraft already. By the way, the dangerous proximity problem that the NATO spokesmen are exploiting has largely resulted from them saturating the region with these weapons. The area used to be absolutely safe from the point of view of classical threats. And now we are getting a string of frontline states.

Question: Yes, in effect.

Alexander Grushko: It's a reality that we will keep in mind in the course of military planning.

Question: Jens Stoltenberg is primarily a politician, not a military figure, who has to coordinate 28 countries' cohabitation within a single alliance. In your mind, are these 28 countries united?

Alexander Grushko: No, I don't think they are. We also observe a lack of unity in the European Union. As is only natural, NATO is strongly influenced by the US and those countries that would like to regard NATO as a tool for separating Russia from Europe. Regretfully, what we are seeing, the processes that are afoot within NATO are, from the political point of view, attempts to drive a wedge between the Europeans and Russia and to create a kind ofcordon sanitaire.