Speeches and Interviews of the Permanent Representative

Vienna, Kahlenberg, 7 April 2017

Session I: Threat perceptions in the OSCE area
We thank our German colleagues, especially Ambassador Eberhard Pohl, and the Austrian Chairmanship for their intensive efforts to put together an agenda for the “structured dialogue”. The tasks set in the Hamburg Ministerial Council decision are extremely complex.
However, I will not begin with this. Today’s missile strike by the United States of America against the territory of the sovereign State of Syria without a United Nations Security Council mandate was a flagrant act of aggression likely to have disastrous consequences for the region and global security. Why have none of the participants in this discussion uttered a word about the US Government’s blatant disregard for the norms of international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act and other fundamental CSCE/OSCE documents and decisions? And how, after what has happened, can we engage in dialogue on restoring trust and discuss the prospects for strengthening military security in Europe? This is a shameful policy that actually encourages further aggressive intentions on the part of certain States.
Let us now turn to the subject of the meeting. The situation in and around the Euro-Atlantic region has deteriorated considerably in recent years. The foundations of politico-military security enshrined in numerous CSCE/OSCE decisions have continued to be subjected to powerful erosion rather than strengthened. The conditions for an arms race have multiplied, and dialogue on the basis of equal rights and co-operation have been replaced with crude accusatory rhetoric, the open use of force against sovereign States in circumvention of the UN Security Council, unilateral sanctions and attempts to bring about the fragmentation of the common security space. Countless terrorist attacks and threats of the resumption of regional conflicts have acquired a destructive force. Is this the Europe we all had in mind when we agreed in the OSCE to form a common and indivisible community of equal security? Nevertheless, this task retains its relevance following its formalization at the OSCE Summit in Astana in 2010. However, at this stage, at least, we should try to take steps towards restoring trust and collectively evaluating threats common to us all, without attempting to impose our will and values on one another.
Priority steps should be to put a stop to the efforts to undermine the potential for dialogue and co-operation in combating real rather than mythical threats and challenges, to attempt to conduct an objective comparative analysis of military capabilities in the OSCE area with a view to a more flexible understanding of these matters and the creation of a common framework for further development. This is the logic behind the Hamburg Ministerial Council decision.
It is understandable that each of us have our own doctrinal ideas regarding threats to national security. Let me outline briefly the Russian view of the current challenges formulated in basic documents, including the updated Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation and National Security Strategy approved by the President.
This refers above all to the building up of NATO’s military capabilities and the endowing of the Alliance with global functions carried out in violation of the norms of international law; the intensification of the military activity of the countries of the bloc; further expansion of the Alliance; the military infrastructure of NATO member countries moving closer to Russia’s borders.
The continuing establishment of US anti-missile defence facilities in Europe also has the potential to seriously destabilize the situation. NATO’s unwillingness to amend its anti-missile programme in the light of the agreements on the Iranian nuclear programme is revealing.
The use of military force in international relations and the associated increase in the number of hotspots around the world is cause for growing concern. The reason for this is the short-sighted and irresponsible actions of some countries, which lead to the erosion of the existing international legal system and its fragmentation. Selective application of international law and its “adaptation” to short-term political interests result in the emergence of long-term hotbeds of instability and conflicts.
Such examples are well known. They include the recognition by a host of countries of the independence of Kosovo in violation of UN Security Council resolution 1244, the use of force to remove “undesirable” leaders in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya, and now attempts to repeat this scenario in Syria, as well as the organization of a coup d’état in Ukraine.
The active spread of terrorism, extremism, and interreligious and inter-ethnic enmity is a consequence of the policy of double standards and disregard for the norms of international law.
There is a growing danger of not only a large number of conventional arms but also weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists.
We consider the use of information and communication technologies by States to achieve their own geopolitical goals and also by terrorist organizations and transnational criminal groups to be a significant challenge.
Furthermore, in addition to political and military threats, against the background of imbalances in the global economy, there remains a high risk of another large-scale financial and economic crisis. The global demographic situation, environmental problems and food security are becoming more complicated.
We are convinced that the OSCE, with its concept of comprehensive and indivisible security, can and should contribute to extensive discussions on the whole range of problems mentioned.