New Challenges - Better Capabilities

Welcome to this afternoon session on NATO and the EU relations with Russia. My name is Edward Lucas, I am a journalist at The Economist magazine which has its own views on these issues. But today, I am going to be strictly neutral because you have come to hear not me but a very distinguished panel. You can read the biographies here, so I am not going to waste time, just reading the type. We have a really first class line up from people who offered the countries that matter and with biographies that had given great inside into this. We are also joined by outstations in Warsaw, Banská Bystrica and Brno. I am very keen to make this discussion lively and interactive so I am going to be interrupting anybody who goes on for too long. I look a lot of questions on the floor particularly if you disagree with something. If you just want to get up and want say what a nice conference it is fine but you can maybe save it for later.

I am very struck by the title What is the Future of NATO - EU relations with Russia. Because you can actually just leave the last two words and say what is the future of NATO - EU relations we would be pretty interesting, we might by pretty good discussion on that. By adding Russia into that making what some people might see almost as a triangle and is all the more interesting.

I am going to go to Eugeniusz Smolar first, then to Mr. Jurgens and finally to Eckart von Klaeden.
And we might start off by looking some miscomprehensions. Instruct me in each of these outfits, countries, categories. People would see themselves differently from the way other see them. So how Russia sees the EU is not the same way the EU sees the EU, the way Russia sees NATO is probably not way that NATO sees NATO and vice versa with Russia. So we might start off on that, in enumerating some of these miscomprehensions and the difficulties. Eugeniusz goes to.

We are new boys in town, we are new members of NATO and European Union, and we think it is a good thing. Well in Moscow, I have heard several times Russia rejects NATO subject and EU subject. What? That means that statement creates already havoc with something with some people would like to see as its strategic relationship. In this context, president Medvedev have foot forward in proposal of new security architecture. I have been participate in dozen of conferences including in Moscow and I still don´t know what it is all about. It seems that Russians have devised the key to the western soul at least some and they now want us to the job. And the next conference is actually 27th at Mudimo in Moscow. So we have been working very hard at least some of them to puts some muscles into this project. At the puffing and uffing the result is that the only institution which can actually embrace this concept is OSCE - that means called Helsinki process. Well, we central Europeans we like Helsinki one so maybe we will like Helsinki two even better. Especially our opposition, solidarity movement, Charta 77 and others like the Human rights provisions. So where does it lead us?

Especially after the war in Georgia. We can understand that some people don´t like Saakašvili what actually invited the country occupying and actually cutting off some parts of it. It is not something we would call law and order especially respect for international law. President Medvedev has spoken quiet openly about this so called legal nihilism in Russia and I think we have here a perfect example of that. So I believe that we can count on the case by case cooperation with Russia at the moment and hope for better in the future. Unless the both sides will embrace window opportunity with is related to president Obama. But it needs a compromise on both sides. From where I speak the compromise can be quite far reaching with one proviso. No one can compromise on values and the respect for sovereignty of the neighbour states although neighbour states of Russia including Ukraine and Georgia. Otherwise anything could be negotiated.

Right, it is a very good launching but I’m turning to you Mr. Yurgens. It was often said that NATO was keep to Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out. The new Russian security architecture is designed to do exactly the opposite, to get the Americans out, the Russians in and to put the Germans up. I think that just is unfair as the original description of NATO which I think was very hurtful from the German point of view. But perhaps I’m looking to choose for anyone to be mystified about this security architecture. What actually is Mr. Medvedev really proposing?

Well, first of all I would like to say that I am not speaking on behalf of the official  Moscow right because in one of those booklet I was even named the president of Russia federation, that is huge over rested mention, very dangerous one.

The situation improves drastically of course. When Bush came down and Obama came to Russia, they struck hands, there are some open and closed conversations which push the things in this re-set direction, then Rasmussen who we hope to hear tomorrow was very good too, so there is reset the idea of this new architecture what we call the European Security Treaty was advanced before that and that give some of the politologists an idea how to invent something like Helsinki plus. And Helsinki plus should have been invented from my point of view for two simple reasons. It did not work, Helsinki did not work anymore in terms of border after Kosovo and then upsetting Abkhazia it is outdated. That the decision making to attack it is just outdated and the hope idea already seems little absolute.  Mr. Brezhnev signed the Charta but there are no such entities anymore. So from this point of view we thought that the new architecture would give us a chance to starting in about something broad.

Among those broad things I will just enumerate three ideas which I have personally a gain and I stop there and would love to answer the questions after. Number one: If someone thinks that new missile defence system will be American missile defence system they are very wrong. I have talked to people in Washington of responsibility and position and they say: If they think that we are going to protrude our umbrella about Iceland, they are very wrong. So now when we agree it will be a new entire missile system the idea which Medvedev sometimes said advance of the global missile system plays. And we have some infrastructional, technical and material and financial means to contribute.

I am not military member I know that the trajectory ways, we have to place them in order not to try to catch them, but do intercept them. And we have facilities on the territorial Russian Federation in some of our allies to do that. If were successful in at least starting thinking about this on the expert level. That would be already a good thing. Number two idea which I think that I am promoting among think tanks which I know in the west is to look at the Afghanistan a little broader. I have my own experience in Afghanistan; I was in that country when the Soviets were there. We started buying those stripes one by one alongside Najibullah. Americans still are not on that stage, we have to do that, we have our own experience. I would involve in such conference even Iran, Afghanistan, obviously India, Pakistan, USA, us and China of course. On the expert level first and then if we can work out the plan which will not be the plan of the western suppression of the exotic but independent nation but something else that would contribute also. And number three, if those first two initiatives can work, at least on the expert level, then I don´t see any wrong on start talking on the treaty, binding treaty between NATO and GCTO and Shanghai Organisation of Cooperation on the security matters in this broader Middle East and the special in Pakistan and Afghanistan situation. And in a long run I finish here. I would apply for NATO part membership as Russian Federation. It would be the different organisation, it will take us some time but I am sure that northern hemisphere security organisation is a better idea nowadays.

Thank you very much, indeed I was at the conference just recently were someone post the question what would happen in NATO if Russia join NATO to someone replied what won’t be right to do the job. Which may be is a good thing.

Eckart, there has been the huge change potentionally in Europe. With the of Grand coalition, Germany the most important country in Europe and over period many years people have been watching with sometimes with the alarms sometimes with the enthusiasm as the relations as the relations between Germany and Russia has strength and deepened and one politician sound even coin name “Schrederacia” for this process because he did not like it. And other people think is very benign. What is your feeling? What could happen now with new government in Germany?

First of all I think we have to see that there has been a huge change already in the Grand coalition in our relations towards Russia. Especially after the Georgian war the terms strategic partnership has never been used also by the social democratic foreign minister Steimayer and it was replaced by the wording modernizing partnership and I would say from strategic to modernizing partnership is a friendly downgrading of the goal.

The second point is if we talk about strategic partnership it is no longer defined as a partnership between Germany and Russia. It is defined as the partnership between the European Union and Russia. So if we are not clear how to define strategy, we can be clear who the partners are European Union and Russia on the other side. And that change in the new coalition of course it will depend on which the FDP also will go. I have a mixed impression from the FDP. On the one hand, you have some politicians there who still rely on their experiences of the Russia at the end of the 80´s and at the beginning of the 90´s and on the other hand, you have politicians for instance who were very keen on for instance Khodorovsky case in the Council of Europe. So you have mix picture there and also I have heard from my FDP colleagues that they wanted to use the phrase of the pragmatic partnership and this means that they don´t want to deal not with the Russia we want but with Russia which is existing. So I think there can be some changes and my proposal to explain our relationship is that we should be open, decisive and united as Europeans towards Russia and I really like the phrase, the sentence Ronald Reagan gave us before he met Gorbachev for first time in Reykjavik, he was asked what he is expecting and he said “We want peace but you need to too tango” so that means, we are open, we want as much cooperation that we can but we have be clear on our principles and especially in our neighbourhood, there cannot be any false compromises but if we agree on the common principles we have established in 90´s,then of course the cooperation can be broad and deep as much as Russia wants it. But we should not blame us for the Russian behaviour.

Right, thank you very much. I should mention that Eckard’s a book on why Germany -Russian policy should be more European is an absolutely compelling read , if you speak German I’d heart fully recommend it. I will be jotting down from the subjects we have touched we have really got enough for the whole conference here. We have got an Afghanistan, missile defence, treaty with the CSTO, future of the OSCE, Helsinki II.. This is just the subject we have discussed already. On my to – do list is energy NATO expansion crocuses on Ukraine, so I am going to get trough that many of those as possible in the next hour. I would like to takes some questions from the floor and then maybe also from outstations. If anyone there wants to pose the question before we come back to panel discussion. So who has the temptation, what about defence ministers here, would you like to say something? So Eugeniuzs, would you come back on.

Well, I think that we have covered NATO but there is EU aspect which Eckart has actually mentioned. I think that is incredibly interesting because, of course NATO is fun, we have Georgia and Ukraine and enlargement. But EU is boring, I mean talks about notes and regulations.

Just one or two observations. For one, Russia will develop in time. Now it is an oil and gas based economy but hopefully in the future it will produce more consumer goods for the European market. And then it will hit delouse and regulation of the European Union. I have been just reading with certain fascination with the book produced auspices of professor here and from his institute and it say again that we are rejecting this EU centric quote that we have on our rules regulations and we have to compromise. Here is the statement which is a pretty strong, is that Commission doesn´t have a soul. Commission has rules and regulations and it will by a major obstacle to meet these obligations.

Secondly, which is very important is also that some people don´t realise, what kind of wunderwaffe is going to be as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty removes several parts of the economic decision from the Council that means from Ministers and Heads of states to the Commission and to the European Parliament which is particularly threatening beast. So I say that Russia might face non-political purely pragmatic problems in trade relations with the European Union and they need to be addressed as quickly as possible. I must say that PCA I.-Partnership Cooperation Agreement didn´t work very well and the negotiations about PSA II. are not progressing either. So this issue is very important and needs to be addressed.

Well, Mr. Yurgens would you like to address it?

Yes well, first of all it is question of the internal fight too we have a run pro-European and to and anti European party. Then you will see in the process of the entry into WTO in this space in which Cooperation and Partnership Agreement is being discussed and at the moment the 6th round of PCA is finished and the latest which we know in Moscow, it finished well. I mean we were progressing in some place.

Then the pro-European party one when the president and the chief negotiater nouns that were entering WTO alone. Because otherwise it would have taken another eleven years and then all the problems which my Polish colleague’s  pointed out, it would be huge problems. So I hope that in six months time got willing were in WTO that takes care of a lot of problems in terms of trade and then we go as fast as we can on PCA and our entry into OECD where our observers starters allow us already a streamline a lot of regulations and standards. But having said that I can tell you of course this one seven landmass of the earth is less civilized that in certain areas and to apply the same standards in  Bornau and in London it will take some time. No question about that. But we have to go that way we are going to that way drastically fast just one last phrase. Very famous ambassador George Kennan who was the ambassador of the United States during the Second World War in Moscow sent two cables to Washington, a long one and a short one. In a long one he said: “Don´t try to change the life of these people. They will figure out sooner or later what they want to do and how they want to live”. And the second was what containment. Contain them, because some of the Stalinist instincts in Europe are dangerous.

So if I would change this situation. First of all proved the great deal, we are not Stalinist Soviet Union anymore, we are much cooperative entity. That is number one. Number two. If you change the containment into the engagement on all positive aspects which we have, starting with missiles and ending up in food revolution, remind you we are first exporter of grain in the world now and Soviet Union was the last importer, the biggest importer of all grain in the world. So we are improving. If we take an objective picture of what Russia is compared to the Soviet Union, we will see that we are progressing sometimes not at the speed we would like to.

Right, Eckart you have got some talks on the Energy Charta, I think about the future of EU and Russia energy relations. Do you think is going to be Energy Charta basically dead? Or is going to be any chance of reviewing that with post Lisbon, with new administration?

That is very good question because I wasn´t able to find out at the last days what the decision of the Russian Minister President Putin really means. He left the energy Charta using article 45 or it was a kind of suspending as Russia insteed in the CFS Treaty and on that of which kind the decision the Minister President has made then of course the consequences has to be drawn. If they have left the Energy Charta and have given it up, of course then the Energy Charta with Russia is dead. If it is a kind of suspending then we should think about what kind of the possibility is there, possibility to revive it.

I would like to make comment on the European security architecture because you have mentioned this Russia in, US out, Germany out. This is funny description if it is so and my experience in Moscow is that some people see Germany in that way, how is described there. One Russian colleague said me if Germany gives up its idea our special relationship with Russia, we would give up our status or ability to be great power in Europe. And my answer was yes, yes we don´t want to be a great power in Europe in that sense you have described because it is category that change of the German foreign policy after the Second World War first in the West and then for the unified Germany. In the first part of 20th century we tried to implement our defined and implement, try to implement our national interest against our neighbours and the rule out of all it is that the Germany, in heart of Europe and with 80 million people and the most involved neighbours should be the integrated power in Europe. And this means that our national interest comes with the interest of our neighbours in Europe. And so this means that there cannot be combine with our national interest, special relationship with Russia in this I would say empire or great power sense. But I would go so far that Russia wants to push USA out of Europe, maybe some may think so, but I think also in Moscow the most people know this is complete unrealistic.
I think that main goal is to get veto right on everything in the security area what is important, what´s going on in Europe, for instance to veto the enlargement of NATO, to veto the membership of nations in Russia´s near abroad- the post Soviet space or something like that. And this is something of course, what is tackling and hurting all of principles of 90´s. This is of course something we cannot accept because every nation this is a tremendous progress after the Cold War, every nation is free and this means every nation can decide by themselves which aliens they want to join, they cannot by any direct or indirect veto from anyone also not from us, but also not from Russia.

And maybe the last sentence, I think the one main difference with Russia is that the current Russia from the 90´s Russia is different. We also see some other things which are different but especially regarding the 90´s, my impression is that the official position of Kremel is that European order was made with the weak Russia and that we abused the weakness of Russia to implement our in principles. And my view is that in this period we have gave a primate to a praise to Russia. Hoping and trying to promote the Russia becomes more, much more democratic and this has failed so far and this is the main reason for the differences we have now.

Please Igor would you come back briefly on that. I have heard Russians say that now the Russia is back on its feet again, it is big enough country that recently expect nothing will happen that you doesn´t like in nothing will happen in dislikes in European security. Is that mainstream in the thinking in Moscow, what do you think?

This is not the mainstream in Moscow definitely, there are big groups of people who call themselves statists and patriots who what probably promoting on that way. In their minds, for example Russian orthodoxy is still a more pure religion than Catholicism but what do you do with these people, let them be in this conviction.

What is happening with the young educated Russians? They want to be the part of the European family, they want to have their legitimate interests safeguarded, they don´t want to be pushed around, that is for sure.

About pushing around I have heard from Baltic minister saying that all we are using gas and oil as a weapon a stuff like that. Mazeikiai was put that is oil processing factory was put on tender. The tender by any international standards was one by Russian Lukoil and Lukoil and the all kind of pretext was not given by Mazeikiai was given to Poles . That was political decision. After that Russians curtailed the delivery of oil to Mazeikiai, it was called oil war. Not so, not even the most democratic Russia in the 10 year time, who is ruling Russia, would just sort close their eyes on that kind of development. But having said that. We don´t know sometimes how to deliver messages to the outside world. We are too arrogant sometimes in the Ukrainian case and Belorussian case when in the middle of Christmas Mr. Miller, the president of Gazprom starts with the voice of Marshal Zhukov we are closing down. This is not the way to explain it. Russians were right in the conflict. Ukrainians didn´t pay and stole some our gas but you could negotiated differently, you could have delivered messages differently, you could have put American lawyers to explain that all etc. We are getting there, we are difficult neighbour but we will be democratic and good neighbour not because Germans want us to be that. Because we want to be democratic, free and normal country.

I love the idea that what Russia really needs are the American lawyers, this is your key to take on it. I have seen two hands already; I will respond it, three-four questions. Eugeniuzs just wants to come back briefly on Germany.

On Germany, there is as Russian saying: Kak v kino, kak v žizni / How in the cinema and how in the real life /. In real life I love everything what Eckard have said. Here in real life I have heard someone very close to chancellor Merkel who years ago said: “I cannot rule this country against the energy companies”. That means that there are certain interests on the German business, not only German, French business etc. Actually it has a great influence in the foreign policy of the country. Which is not surprising because even you have European unemployment, actually there is German, Polish, French or Swedish unemployment. However, this creates a little bit problems in relations with the gas, especially gas.

We don´t have European market on gas, we need European market on gas and actually a lack of politician will creates situation with Gazprom can divide the market into this submarkets which is against the European law. We can extract different deals with different countries and different companies even within the countries. This is against the European law. So without going into some kind of big anti-Russian trend, because this is not about anti-Russian, we need to solve ourselves this problem, create unified gas market and if we can deal with Microsoft, we can more certainly deal with Gazprom and this would be to the benefit both for the Europe and also for Russia itself in a long term.

Right, now I am turning for the some interaction from the floor. I am going to microphone to Minister of Defence of Latvia there and the other one to Maryk there. So go ahead Imants.

Thank you very much. I have taken debate of your inviting to us to say few words as the Latvian Minister of Defence as Lucas mentioned.

First of all I am fully endorsed what Mr. Yurgens said about Russia being more democratic because of course for Latvia that is very important as well, that you know a large neighbour should be more democratic, should join to democratic family of nations, of NATO and the European Union.

I want to pick up on something that Eckard said about the veto point because when we wanting to join the Alliance what we were being told. Russia has a voice but not the veto. I think that still, that principle is very important issue. It should be still applied today when we look at the ongoing enlargement of the Alliance. The impression is of course that Russia doesn´t want to have a say in decision making process of both European Union and NATO without a member. Would Mr. Yurgens agree that is the case?

Question (Audience): Edward thank you very much. I am from Poland Public CEC government relations. I think one handle to take on this whole debate it is about the future of the police of the EU and NATO towards Russia. Let´s think a little bit about position of Central Europe. The central European member states of both NATO and EU as we have been hearing in the last half an hour and so. Do you have in fact quite different views about the future of this relationship should be the key strategic areas. Edward Lucas has enlisted is the issue of this relationships with Ukraine, crocuses , energy issues, whole area of missile defence or broader strategic relationship with the USA in Europe. There is a whole a range of issues involving human rights and democracy issues in Russia. Now Central Europe give or take more than two countries broadly have much different sensitive and different inspectives on these issues. Than do many countries in Western Europe, Italy, France and some extent previous government, Germany as well. I am saying the question about the future of the EU/NATO relations with Russia really rests on to what extent Central Europe will be able to have voice or will able to be listened and take on account of in the Council of Europe whether it symbols or in Brussels. Now the answer on that question really depends on how far both Russia and some western countries will be able to force the Central Europeans change their views. Russia regardless what we’ve said has made a great use of  energy as a weapon to trying change this main policies in Central European countries, but there are also more settled matters being used from Brussels.

We know about how funding of EU programmes is going to be shifted from Central Europe back to Western Europe, their issues on article today in polish press describing how few Polish another century European representatives are in the higher on assaults on the European Commission and in situation in European Parliament.

So number of ways in which Europeans can be, may to recognize what Jacque Chirac famously stated a few years ago whose is his strategic goal, which is to make Central Europeans learn their positions and sit down in the corner quietly.

So really the future of EU and NATO relations to Russia will have a much, will be much related to position of Central Europe up to date.

So, I will take more questions from here in minute but now I am going to take question from Banská Bystrica, we are waiting for you, can you hear what I say?

Good afternoon. My name is Lenka Vaňková, I am student of Faculty of Political Sciences and International Affairs in Banská Bystrica. I have two questions. My first question is about specific relation NATO with Russia. It is that to some extent that Russia can be viewed as security threat to NATO and on the other hand NATO is viewed as security threat to Russia. And if you sort of agree with me, do you think there is something that can be done from side of NATO?

And second part of question, do you think that if NATO doesn´t focus on relations with Russia, is it possible that Russia will focus on relations with China or maybe with India for example. Thank you.

Great - the idea of the Russians in the west  Europeans the getting together to squeeze Eastern Europe. Eugeniuzs do you feel squeezed between Russia and Europe?

So I think Germany is squeezed. No I think that Marek touched some sensitive point but I see differently. I can say that for example Eastern partnership which was the Polish and the Swedish would not happen without Germany, without Germany and Poland there is no any sensibility Eastern policy of the European Union. We enjoy the real partnership between the foreign ministries and between the civil society.

But there is a little bit problem with adaptation within the EU. Not within the NATO, within NATO cooperation is a very effective but within European Union there is truly old voice network in thinking, some people haven´t realized that yet. And it needs also different mechanism. Therefore we need Lisbon whatever its limitation within Lisbon to streamline certain aspect of foreign policy. Now we have a debate what kind of foreign policy do we need, do we need strong foreign minister or weak foreign minister and who is going to be and of course, the people like Pole, Czech, Slovak would like to Pole, Czech, Slovak to be a foreign minister. Probably it won´t happen this time but the debate is genuine and it says something about relations of forces in which Central Europeans are not really on the receiving side of this debate. This is not the case and I believe that we need certain understanding that whoever is going to be such a minister whatever foreign service we are going to get rule respect actually the wishes or expectations or sensibilities of the member states. For one particular reason, the veto power is still there. And the veto power is a nuclear weapon in terms of relations and could be used. And then we heard it in terms of Polish material problems for example with the Russia and it was very effective.

Excellent, I am turning on the question from this session about position of energy policy. Would you accept that at least in some cases energy is used as political weapon by Russia?

Believe me, I worked with ExxonMobil with total without the companies in Nigeria, in Columbia and if you tell me that ExxonMobil is not using the force, lobbing force, energy force, money force to promoted some of. Problem is they do it more culture way than Gazprom that. It is beside the point. All of what watchers mention here that all by the Slovak Foreign Minister of EU or Czechs, or Pole. To me as man who inside of Russia insist on institutions and not personalities nations’ ethic. If institution work well, if as my colleague said you have a rule of the game in terms of energy and this rule is competitive rule, you have northern gas coming from Oslo, you have Algerian and Nigerian gas, you have Russian gas, you have rule we come and we do it like we do it with oil on the stock exchange.

I suppose that the difference is that Exxon is not the 50% owned by the U.S. government and the Board of Exxon...

You will be surprised, 40% of Gazprom it is owned by the German interests. So what? The life is being internationalized. Russia is not a Stalinist Russia. Russia lives with the managers who are 45 years old and who are training in Wroclaw, in Oxford, in Cambridge and stuff like that. Life has changed. Yes, remains of the past a very heavy, yes this super idea of super Russia and mother Russia with some mission with some categories yes, but there are orthodox people in the USA who do the same.

What about question from Banská Bystrica about China. Do you think that any people think like that?

It would think that it would be a smart idea until we strengthen out about differences and as I said at the beginning, join European Union. I am for one; I want my children to be in the European Union and in NATO which will be in that time called not North Atlantic but Atlantic Pacific Security Organisation. That is what I want. Until that time it is very normal tactics of Russian diplomacy to gravitate efforts among three our super neighbours. The European Union, USA and China. And whatever opportunity comes to alleviate some of the instruments of international burgeoning I think is a good idea.

Eckart, do you want to come back on these questions?

First of all exceptionally I want to defend Germany, of what Eugeniusz said, regarding energy in Europe. Germany is sometimes in the same role as the USA in global issues and so that German government of course has to defend the interest of our own companies. This is I would say this is normal. If they are legitimate of course.

And on the other hand we are responsible with as I said nine neighbours, we are responsible for European order and sometimes it could seem from the point of view of our neighbours that there is some contradiction in that. But regarding and I would say Schroeder not solve this tension well enough and in the end he hurt both. Interest of the companies and also interest of Germany regarding the European order. But I just want to take, would like to take to account that for instance the rejecting proposal of Putin to explore the stock few together because in that there were some voices in the Russia press saying that is he chancellor of Poland, not the chancellor of Germany.

The second point is our proposal to have sight lights to North stream or to establish technical devices that is not possible to cut off Poland or the Baltic states on the one hand and to deliver Germany with gas on the other.

The third thing is of course we are for European market but we also gave gas during the last gas crises to Central European states but what we also want is that we have the same standards for instance regarding storage and but of course we lead this European market as we said based on mutual or multilateral solidarity.

Right, now we can take question from the floor first and then from Warsaw. Actually Mr. Onuskiewicz you are from Warsaw, please stand up.

One comment. Well, European Union is absolutely determined in negotiations with Russia on PCA, that’s Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. To have the main, sort of issues from the energy charter to be included and be actually in this agreement. So, regardless what’s Russian position on this charter is going to be, there is an expectation that the main provisions of this charter will be actually enshrined in new this treaty. That’s just one comment. The other comment is Božejky??? Well, you know the outcome of the tender was to the challenge in the courts and to close the pipe line by totally different enterprise; it was really politically motivated move.

To take the oil was not politically motivated, but to close the pipeline was politically motivated.

I think the tender was fully carried out and it was not challenged in the court. But my question is slightly different, because when I read what President Medvedev has said, what the idea behind the new sort of arrangement in Europe is, I see, that basically everything is covered in already existing institutions and agreements. Or let’s take the Paris Charter of New Europe, everything is there: -the guarantees of invariability of borders, the fact that there’ll be no aggression and so on and so on. So, my feeling is and I would like to echo what has already been said, that Russia is not seeking actually the mechanisms of consultation. It’s not about consultation, it’s about concern. And that obviously is a problem. So, my simply question is what really is the essence of institutional framework should be the result of this new agreement which Russia is proposing.

I have a question on Mr. Yurgens: I agree with you completely that Russia today is not a Soviet Union, fortunately, I would add. On the other hand, when you mentioned signals Russia is sending to the outside world, do you think that current reappraisal of Stalin era, for example, of the Soviet past, with its communist atrocities between 1917 and 1991 is the best signal that could be sent? I think that Russia should try to empathize more with for example central European countries, because imagine, and I know that I might make you angry, imagine for example German Secretary Chancellor Merkel saying that dissolution of The Third Reich was the worst thing in German history in the previous century. Thank you.

It is an excellent question, but we must try and stick to NATO –EU – Russia relations from branching out into all these other things fascinating that they are. Warsaw is ready – go ahead, sir.

I am a student of national defense at University at Warsaw. My question is: Taking into consideration the Russian strategic interest or objective, which partner is more important for Russian Federation – NATO or European Union and why?

Thank you. I’ m also from Warsaw. We’ve a quick question about Afghanistan. Mister you were talking about cooperation with NATO - Russia in Afghanistan, because you have your own experience. Well, with all my wishes about cooperation and with all my respect, I want to ask you what kind of experience we can share? NATO is for now in Afghanistan doing a peace support operation and you were in 80ties in a completely different time and with a completely different approach, I think. So, what kind of cooperation NATO – Russia in Afghanistan we can have when, for example the Manas base is closed right now? Thank you.

Well, I’ve brief comment and two questions from Slovakia. Well, a comment is a linguistic one. I was listening to labeling the new possible accord The Helsinki two. Well, in my perception that The Helsinki Treaty was a treaty between two blocs, maybe two enemies, so if someone speaks about Helsinki two it’s a certain allusion to that’s told of efforts. Which is not the case, I know, this is just a linguistic remark. And two questions to all panelists: Well, what we are hearing from Russia are discerning voices: There is a strategy which was very carefully listened in European Union of president Medvedev, but there are other voices, not only voices about the past, about Stalin era and not only the voices about from orthodox church, but also the voices from the military or security establishment or part of it, which are even using the concepts of certain elements of prevention in their military strategy. So, my question is how can one reconcile this initiative by president Medvedev with other important and strong voices within Russia? And second question is about small countries. I would like to hear just your comment why the Russian politicians and diplomats are repeatedly using some small countries like for instance Slovakia, Bulgaria and also the Serbia emphasizing that those small countries should play a more important role, because they better understand Russia than the EU. What’s the difference between how should small Slovakia understand Russia and how should the European Union understand it? Unless there is certain, I would say, supposition that maybe that those countries will rather profit from bilateral relationships at their extent of common policy?

Right, thank you very much for a deep target into imposing the new rule of asking questions. I’m not like to leave the room before you have listened to the answers. So, Jimmy.

I must say I’m particularly fascinated and did some work on OSCE. The difference between the Helsinki, and you are right, that was a very interesting attempt of two signing parts not to implement what they signed under. The result is wonderful and we enjoy it now. But now, well, we have OSCE, we have OSCE with 56 member states form Euro – Asia area that means exactly what president Medvedev has reminded – with all non-sense regulations – military, strategic, you know – openness military matters, but also the values like the elections, democratic rules, respect for human civil rights etc etc. So I would probably move with Russia and also with Washington to some extent is the daylight not like the OSCE. Washington, for example, didn’t like the OSCE, then they realized that Russian doesn’t like it, so they started to like it. When Russia is concern, Russia likes the possibility of influencing and also vetoing, for example, the budget which happened at least on 3 occasions when its organization was frozen, but Russia doesn’t like the monitoring of the elections in the part of the world, where Russia would like to have some kind of a privilege. So, I find the OSCE an unsuitable mechanism of agreeing on certain principle and returning certain transparency and to know what the other side, if there is another side, wishes and to implement at least what has been signed already. When Russia – NATO relationship, I would agree with what professor Yurgen’s colleagues have agreed on in a booklet of his institute. About the EU, that we can expect better relations with the individual member states, but to protract the negotiations, would actually do more harm than good. Actually, I ask myself what does it mean? Shouldn’t we negotiate the PCA two agreement, of course we are going to negotiate the PCA two agreement, because it’s a natural thing that diplomats earn their bread by negotiating, but I’m afraid that we can’t expect too much in the next 5 -6 years, probably WTO will solve a lot of problems.

But this idea that Russia is unique in playing dividing role with the European Union which is very powerfully films in places. How’s that different from the way America deals with the European Union?

Well, America is a very strange beast. It imposes our security debate in Europe, for example missile defense. It’s actually because America has unique role to play. NATO doesn’t exist without USA and Canada to add. But in the context of the European Union, this is a much more and equal situation. And also we can agree on things which are in the interest of everybody. Within the context of NATO I know sure, even if we agree within NATO on certain things – some of the member states do not conform to the decisions they made.

If you have, another 45 minutes, I have 15 000 questions. So let me start with some easy ones. Manas base in not closed for your knowledge, they are just negotiating the different price.  And Manas will be working for the US interest the way it is. I can tell you also that Russia’ s allowed US military personnel not to be checked flying through Russia to Afghanistan, which is a huge break through after Obama came to our country. As well as 5 other nations, they are carrying non – little, but little material to Afghanistan. What we can do with Afghanistan together, I can tell you the following- at the moment you know that there’ll be a run out of the most corrupt elections you’ve ever had in a democratic nation of Afghanistan and Mr. Karzai immediately just by one decision lost 15 per cent of the votes. So, not to repeat the mistakes of Iraque, where you can introduce democracy like this. You can learn something from how Russians or Soviets at that time worked in different provinces of Afghanistan. That country never was controlled by the central government. Only 40 per cent of Afghan “Tsaa Csa Ut” or whatever was controlled. So, United States tried to concentrate on Tora Bora and a number of regions where Al –Kaida possibly is. Actually, you have to strike a deal with Pashtuns which is the major population both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. If you don’t control Pashtuns, you lose nuclear arms and then we’re in a very big problem and trouble. Then you will never say Iranians that they cannot have army, their nuclear arms. If Pashtuns seize even two bombs in Pakistan, that’s it. So, we know about the situation much about than you do. On the territory of ex – Soviet Union, millions of Curds lived, who were be agents of the whole thing and so and so for. That’s just to give you an example how we can cooperate.

On Stalin – Russian communist party, which is alive and kicking and legitimately gathering about 15 per cent of the vote, thinks Stalin is a hero. So what? For me, he’s not. If you want this quote from Mr. Putin he’d say literally the following: For me as a Russian, the collapse of the Soviet Union in my destiny was a big tragedy. That’s it. Finish. Please, don’t put on Russians more that Russians already suffer from. This Stalinization is going on every day. Come to Moscow, stay with me for one month and have a look at each channel of television. This Stalinization is the programme of this power. Stalinists will always exist like the people from France, who still want the restoration of the `roi` or de Gaulle – whatever. Please, there are limits to which you can call Russians Stalinists out rightly.

Do Russians want new states in NATO or not? It’s not our business. You declared that for the time being that Ukraine and Georgia do not meet the criteria – it was not Russia, who declared that. If I remember correctly, the last referendum on Ukraine 60 per cent were against that and it was a public referendum. Georgia – different thing, but we have a serious conflict and after the last report of the European parliament, it’s crystal clear who started the conflict. I don’t want to justify all the acts of my government. If you’re there for 15 years as a peace keeper, you should have produced something. But I would also tell you that if you want to tell me that Abkhazians would embrace Georgians as their tutors on one territory, forget it. They kill each other and were killing each other at hundreds of thousands. Somebody had to stop them and Mr. Gorbačov saved Mr. Ševarnadze from being killed by Abkhazians in Sucumi back in 1993. So, this is a very sad and serious story. We have to calm down and we have to negotiate. Definitely, if Albania is in NATO tomorrow, I would applaud. If Croatia is in NATO tomorrow, I would applaud. It will weaken NATO many times over. If all of these nations are in NATO tomorrow, I would applaud and I would actually run for the general secretary of, because of –do not give it to us.

You would finish being the president of Russia. We have a question from Brno coming in the moment and then Eckart do you want to respond very quickly to any of these? But let’s take the question from Brno.

Good evening, I’m a student at Masaryk University, I would like to ask are Russians also skeptic in terms of EU enlargement to east as they are in terms of NATO enlargement to east. Would Russians protest if Georgia and Ukraine will become a part of the European Union?

That’s a good question. We’ll save it just for the moment.

Milan Ježovica, foreign policy analyst, M.E.S.A. 10, and the Member of the Board of the Slovak Atlantic Commission. I was very much intrigued by what Mr. Yurgens has said that Russia does not know how to deliver the message to the outer world. And you know, maybe he is right, I don’t know, because if I look up with a little bit glimpse into the past, what we were hearing from Russia was first NATO enlargement is a strike to Russia, second if there is a missile defense, we will point missiles at Poland and Czech republic and third with the guess that Russia is free to decide whenever it wants to cut the deliveries of gas to Europe. And I’m intrigued what can we expect from Russia; can we expect that as you are saying that the delivery is not precise, can we expect that different wrapping or can we expect a change in the content? If so, what would be the changes of the content of the message that Russia will be delivering to Europe?

I just want to add, because it also intrigued me that foreign ministry of Poland Mr. Radek Sikorski has quipped,  made a joke asking the Russians generals not to threaten Poland with nuclear annihilation more often than three times a week. Because that was at that time. It was not only the way how it is being done, it is the substance which worries some of us.

Do you really think that Russians will annihilate Poland?

No.

So, there are some very emotional things being said across. Especially by us, Russians, and you Poles. O f course, I have to apologize for three divisions of Poland by Catherine, the Great, Alexander II etc. But I can apologize only for a limited period of time, because otherwise I will not have time to establish friendly relations with you. Do you see what I mean? So, let’s have a limit there sometime.

Thank you; I am Klara Fekete, principal advisor to the Hungarian minister of defense. First of all, I would like to thank you very much for your very straight forward banners. My question goes to the panel. Talking about strengthening the ties and increasing partnership between Russia –EU and NATO are you thinking about an increase partnership with Russia only, or is it more when you share new ideas also including other countries, maybe about Russia for instance. Thank you
Question (Warsaw): I study international security in Warsaw and my question is that : When formulating  Russia –NATO policy, how to marry the principle of allies’ solidarity with the treatment of Russia on the basis of principle of partnership?

Solidarity on the one hand, partnership on the other.

I read your book The New Cold War with the great interest and I remember you were adamant  that European member states were apathetitic towards Russian investment in European refinery facilities, storage facilities, high plan facilities at their own risk. I simply want that if since then you have changed your point of view at all and perhaps in light of the new coalition that will form in Germany, perhaps great independence for give to the chancellor Merkel. Where do you think this will allow? How more independence in her life…

I think you have cheated three times. First of all, by getting friend to give the microphone to you. And then by trying to pose a question to a moderate, who is trying to stay neutral, so I shall pretend I didn’t hear that. And I’m taking a question from over there.

I’m Michael Samos from Ukraine Observer, from Ukrainian magazine. It wasn’t any referendum unfortunately about NATO yet. Actually about messages you told that Ukraine stole the gas, but I’ve never heard about any request from Russia, even about investigation on it. So, can you give us some information about it.  And I just want to, how we can understand the last messages from minister Patrushev about possibility to use nuclear power, or nuclear weapon even in local conflicts. Thank you.

I’m from Lithuania. My question is maybe surprisingly to German representative and that’ s simple question: EU – Russia relations and related to North stream gas pipe line. And start by saying, I don’t know if it’s true or not, that gas pipe line on the bottom of the sea costs something like 6 billion euro extra to compare if it same capacity pipe line would be built in lands of, I don’t know Lithuania, Poland. Why Russia agreed to pay those extra billion is more or less understandable, at least for someone, but they heard explanation of simply Russian own arguments from Germany side. Why Germany agreed to pay those 6 billion extra?

Thank you very much. I think I give you just an exclude from a discussion  the details of Russian – Ukrainian gas ride.  Because I think we are not likely to reach the resolution discussed it here this way. So, I’m just going to put that one on one side and in place of that I am going to throw in the question of Crimea and Sevastopol as a more practical, probably less complicated, because it doesn’t devote many numbers. Econ, give a full answers.