Trine Bramsen reagerer på kritik fra russisk ambassadør: "Det er jo mageløst"

Læs det fulde svar fra Ruslands ambassadør

- NATO countries' violation of all-European agreements, the focus of the alliance’s policy on gaining absolute military superiority have provoked the upsurge of tension between Russia and the West. The United States, with the connivance of the NATO allies, has destroyed key elements of the treaty basedsecurity framework in the Euro-Atlantic area, including the ABM Treaty, the INFTreaty, and the Open Skies Treaty. The dialogue on the military track, especially in the format of the Russia-NATO Council, needed to discuss military aspects of security policy, has been suspended.

As a part of so-called NATO countries’ deterrence policy, large-scale exercises along the Russian borders are being conducted on a regular basis. NATO military infrastructure is being built and strike weapons systems are being deployed there. Unlike Russia, the US nuclear deterrent infrastructure is deployednot only on national territory, but also on the soil of a number of European NATO member states. There are no effective limits to further military preparations by the US and NATO in Europe today.

As a result, the military risks to Russia’s security have increased significantly. Russian initiatives to de-escalate the military and political situation have been ignored by NATO countries.

Russia was forced to demand legally binding security assurances from the United States and NATO that would preclude the expansion of the alliance and the deployment of strike weapons systems, as well as stipulating to return of NATO military capabilities to the status quo at the period of signing of the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation" in 1997. In December 2021 Russian drafts of the relevant agreementswere handed over to the United States and NATO.

***

- The results of the negotiations in Geneva and Brussels should be assessedonly after written comments, including possible counter-proposals, have been received from the United States and NATO on all paragraphs of the Russian draft documents. Conclusions on furthers steps will be made only on the basis of their overall assessment. Russia’s indisputable priority is to find a solution at the negotiating table. It would be a mistake if one expects that agreements can be reached by further concessions from the Russian Side.

If Russian concerns continue to be neglected, military - technical responselike creation of similar vulnerabilities to the national security of NATO countries and mitigation of existing military risks to Russia’s security are not excluded.

***

- NATO countries pander to any move by the Ukrainian authorities, implement a comprehensive programme to increase combat capabilities of the Ukrainian army, and conduct a massive disinformation campaign. Denmark is also contributing to these efforts. Such policy inflames the situation on the Donbas and may encourage Kiev to bury the Minsk agreements, which Ukraine does not intend to implement.

There is a direct analogy with the events of 2008 in Georgia. The Georgian troops’ invasion of South Ossetia territory, slaughter of the civilians and Russian peacekeepers there led to irreversible consequences for Georgia.

Russian-Danish relations are now becoming a hostage to the development of the situation around Ukraine. The existing opportunities to promote Russian-Danish cooperation are not being used. This is Denmark’s choice.

***

- The US and NATO assume that they are the only ones to determine how to interpret and which states to give the right to choose the way to ensure their national security. Hence – the Caribbean crisis of 1962, the nervous reaction to Kazakhstan’s invitation to the CSTO peacekeeping forces to help resolve the crisis in that country, condemnation of Russia’s military aid to Syria, the threat of the US sanctions against Turkey, India and Egypt, which are interested in acquiring Russian weapons. Just a few days ago the US National Security Adviser J.Sullivanin his comment on a possible Russian armaments deployment in Latin America, stated that “if Russia were to move in that direction, we would deal with it decisively” (ABC News, 14/01/2022).

Russia based its position during the talks in Geneva and Brussels on the pan-European documents - the Charter of Paris for a New Europe (1990) and the Istanbul Charter for European Security (1999). These documents refer to the indivisibility of European security and respect for the right of choice of States in matters of national security on the precondition that strengthening of the security of some States is not at the expense of the security of others.

***

- The Minister of Defence of Denmark, T.Bramsen, in an interview to«Berlingske» on January 9, 2021, attributed aggressive intentions towards the Baltic States to Russia. Such claims have nothing to do with reality and even contradict the conclusions of the Danish Military Intelligence Service report, which was published on 21 December 2021. This document refers to the «improbability that Russia is ready to have a risk of military conflict with NATO in the Baltic Sea area» (Det er usandsynligt, at Rusland med overlæg vil risikere enmilitær konflikt med NATO i Østersøregionen).

The Minister of Defence of Denmark also considered it appropriate to send a signal to Moscow on the possibility of strengthening the Danish military presence at the Russian borders. Denmark’s desire to build a dialogue with Russia in the language of threats and military pressure seems to be irresponsible at least.

***

- Denmark makes clear that it is not ready for any joint with Russia political and diplomatic decisions on confidence- and security-building measures in the format of bilateral relations, at the regional level (in the Arctic and the Baltic) and on the European continent as a whole. In this regard, there is no dialogue between our countries on these issues today.

***

- As for the Russia’s possible reaction to Sweden and Finland joining NATO, it seems, according to public statements, that Stockholm and Helsinki reconfirmedthe availability of such an option in their national security arsenal. Speculation onpossible further developments seems to be premature and counterproductive.