Paris, 5 June 2008 – During a debate that notably featured an intervention from Ambassador Dmitri Rogozin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to NATO, the point was made in the Assembly on Thursday that Russia’s defence policy made this power more of a “strategic interlocutor than a partner” in its relations with organisations such as NATO or the EU.

Submitting his report on behalf of the Defence Committee, Andrea Rigoni (Italy, Liberal Group) said that Russia’s military doctrine confirmed the country’s “desire to play a leading role in the international arena” and that the cooperation initiated by Moscow with international organisations did “not rule out the possibility of further confrontation”. Recalling that Russia was still a “real nuclear giant” and that it also had considerable reserves of gas and oil and a booming economy, the Rapporteur called on NATO and the EU to recognise the fact that this country was becoming stronger every day. In its recommendations, the Assembly asked the EU and NATO to pursue “dialogue and cooperation with Russia” on the delicate matter of the theatre missile defence and maintaining the acquis of the Conventional Forces Europe (CFE) Treaty. The Assembly would also like to see Russia become involved in EU crisis-management operations where both parties have common interests and for cooperation between European states and Russia to continue.

Replying to questions raised in the report, Ambassador Rogozin recalled that there were still “differences” between his country and NATO both over missile defence and NATO enlargement to the east. On American plans to install a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, he stated that his country did not understand the necessity for America “to protect itself against Iran, which was in the south, by installing such systems in the north, against the will of the Polish and Czech peoples”. Such a move was characteristic of an “arms race mentality”, he added highlighting Russia’s “dissatisfaction” with how talks on the control and reduction of strategic weapons were developing.

In the same vein, Mr Rogozin wondered “why, if the threats are in the south, is NATO enlarging towards the east”. Ukraine and Georgia have practically already been declared future members of NATO with no account being taken of “our interests and our objectives, nor those of the Ukrainian population and the stability of Georgia”. With regard to the partnership with NATO, he felt that the least one could do was “to take account of one’s partner’s opinion, even if it [Russia] does not have a right of veto in NATO”.

In reply to questions from Ukrainian parliamentarians, Mr Rogozin felt that it was “not necessary” for Ukraine to join NATO, as it would “complicate neighbourly relations” between Kyiv and Moscow. “This decision displeases us”, he added, pointing out that NATO was first and foremost a military organisation.

Regarding the EU’s wish to strengthen cooperation with Russia, the Ambassador pondered the “important question of European autonomy”. “In NATO, there is only one leader far way from the European continent, America. It is essential for Europe to have its own political face”, he asserted.

During the debate, Alexander Klukin (Russia) welcomed the Assembly’s determination to pursue the highly constructive interparliamentary dialogue initiated with the Duma and the Federation Council of Russia on security and defence matters.